MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

Electoral Commission

John Heppell: I have to inform the House that the address of 18 January, praying that Her Majesty will reappoint as electoral commissioners Jonathan Glyn Mathias for the period of two years, and Sukhminder Karamjit Singh CBE for the period of four years, was presented to Her Majesty, who is graciously pleased to comply with the request. The appointments will become effective from 19 January.

Oral Answers to Questions

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Education Maintenance Allowance

Shona McIsaac: How many children in Cleethorpes have received the education maintenance allowance; and if she will make a statement.

Meg Hillier: How many children in Hackney, South and Shoreditch have received the EMA; and if she will make a statement.

Ruth Kelly: Data are not available at a constituency level. At the local authority level, for the period September to December 2005, 2,062 young people in north-east Lincolnshire and 2,775 in Hackney received one or more EMA payments. Up to 7 February 2006, 403,949 young people in England had received one or more such payments.

Shona McIsaac: The figures are indeed encouraging, but very few parents in areas such as Grimsby and Cleethorpes have higher level qualifications. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital that we sell staying on at school to them as well as to young people? What is she doing to promote staying on at school and the take-up of EMA with such families?

Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The historic problem is that far too few of our 16 and 17-year-olds choose to stay in education and go on to further or higher education. In fact, we have one of the lowest rates in the industrialised world. EMA payments remove the financial barrier that some young people face who would otherwise choose to study. Fundamentally, the question is how we raise aspirations and involve parents in their children's education, and raise the sights of all children. That is why parental engagement is so important in the education system. It will make most difference for our most disadvantaged young people.

Meg Hillier: My constituency of Hackney, South and Shoreditch is an area of great poverty, but there is no poverty of aspiration. That is demonstrated by the fact that parents and young people have chosen to take up EMAs, but does my right hon. Friend agree that we need serious consensus on the issue? Has she received any indication from the Opposition that they now back EMAs, which are so valuable in Hackney?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State is responsible only for matters in her Department.

Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend makes a very valuable point. We must have consensus, in this House and across the country, if we are to raise young people's aspirations, encourage them to progress and get parents involved in education. It is also important that we remove the financial barriers that prevent young people from taking part in education. I look forward to the time when the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) and his colleagues back the idea of EMAs.

Andrew Turner: For a moment, Mr. Speaker, I thought that the Secretary of State was going to challenge your ruling. I wrote to her on 5 January, on behalf of Charlotte Cook, who is the Isle of Wight's Member of the Youth Parliament. She is concerned that the household income threshold for eligibility for the Christmas bonus might take elder siblings' earnings into account. Will the right hon. Lady set her mind at rest and assure her that the disincentive to elder siblings remaining at home and working will not occur?

Ruth Kelly: I would take the hon. Gentleman's question a little more seriously if he and his party supported the idea of EMAs. However, I am glad that he champions the needs of his constituents, who appreciate the value of EMAs. I look forward to his taking that message back to the constituent whom he mentioned and his other constituents. I can tell him that three-quarters of young people receive the bonus, and that we have designed the system in such a way as to remove the financial barriers that prevent our young people from being involved in post-16 education, and to give them an incentive to continue their studies.

Philip Hollobone: What proportion of students who have received an EMA payment have not gone on to a second year of learning?

Ruth Kelly: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the precise figures, but I can tell him that there are now 17,000 more 16-year-olds in further education than there were in 1998. The extra financial payment is clearly making a real difference to the lives and opportunities of those young people.

University Students (Sickness Certificates)

Chris Bryant: How many university students in England presented sickness certificates for their examinations in 2005?

Bill Rammell: That information is not collected centrally by any organisation. Universities are responsible for their own assessment procedures, but they are guided by a code of practice issued by the Quality Assurance Agency and their practice is independently scrutinised by external examiners and QAA auditors. The QAA believes that universities are adopting more systematic approaches to the consideration of medical certificates and other extenuating circumstances submitted by students.

Chris Bryant: I am not sure how we can know that universities are doing that if we do not know what the statistics are. I am an external adviser for the Oxford theology degree—[Hon. Members: "Ooh!"] Well, it just shows what a terrible state education in Britain is in. We have noticed over the past five years a dramatic increase in the number of students presenting sickness certificates and the worry is that faculties and universities are dealing with the issue differently. If we are to prevent a sicknote tendency from growing in our universities, the Government may need to do more to promote good practice.

Bill Rammell: I am aware of the role that my hon. Friend undertakes, because we have discussed the issue. The role of external examiners is crucial in upholding quality standards in British universities. The QAA is in regular contact with institutions through its institutional audit mechanism. It says that it has identified a trend towards a more systematic approach and equalisation between departments in the management of the process. QAA is not aware of any generic concerns about an increase in the number of medical certificates, and the key point is that acceptance of students' claims about illness are now far more likely to lead to a deferral or resit than an adjustment to students' marks. That should reassure us about academic standards in terms of student outcomes.

Jeremy Wright: Does the Minister agree that students will not reach the point at which they can submit a sickness certificate if they do not reach their final year? Does he share the concern of academics reported in the media this morning that first-year undergraduates do not have the necessary standards of literacy and numeracy? Bearing in mind that they have undergone their secondary education exclusively under a Labour Government, what has gone wrong with their education?

Bill Rammell: The issue is what has gone right with education and schools under this Government. Over the past eight years, we have consistently increased investment and significantly improved results. We are, however, aware of the concerns, which is why we are reforming the 14 to 19 agenda. We very much want universities to be part of that process. The hon. Gentleman mentioned drop-out rates, but the past several years have seen a reduction in drop-outs, because the system has been improving.

Sixth Form Finance

James Gray: If she will make a statement on sixth form funding in schools.

Jacqui Smith: Since 2002–03, school sixth form funding has increased from £1.4 billion to a planned £1.9 billion in 2007–08. On 21 October, we announced our strategy for Government funding priorities for post-16 education to 2008, including for school sixth forms. We confirmed the extra funding to meet the needs of an additional 46,000 16 to18-year-olds expected in school sixth forms and colleges by 2007–08 and we are increasing funding rates for 2006–07 and 2007–08 in line with the schools minimum funding guarantee.

James Gray: I am grateful to the Minister for her full answer and I am grateful to the Government for their commitment to a vibrant and fast expanding sixth form sector in schools. However, schools in my constituency, which are growing fast, have raised a question with me. For example, Sheldon school, a very successful school in Chippenham, will have 80 more pupils in the sixth form next year than it has this year, but because of the new Learning and Skills Council formula the funding is based on last year's figures. That means that the school will be £200,000 out of pocket. Will the Minister look at the LSC funding formula to ensure that fast-expanding schools—Corsham school is another example from my constituency—do not experience a perverse disincentive to increase numbers in their sixth form? They should have an incentive to increase the numbers.

Jacqui Smith: Earlier this week we discussed the school funding regulations in a Committee Room. There was cross-party consensus that the move to funding schools on the basis of lagged pupil numbers helped to provide certainty in budgets and that that was an important criterion, but I recognise the specific issue raised by the hon. Gentleman. I have read the letters from the head teacher of Sheldon school. Although we have put into the system safeguards such as the cash floor of sixth-form funding for the coming years and the overall school minimum funding guarantee, there may well be specific, exceptional circumstances—possibly such as those that the hon. Gentleman mentions—where it would be appropriate for the Learning and Skills Council to consider how such exceptional growth could be met. It is working on proposals, and it will present options to Ministers in the near future.

Paul Farrelly: Will my right hon. Friend describe the procedures that new trust schools must go through to set up sixth forms and the approvals that will be necessary where those schools do not have sixth forms already?

Jacqui Smith: As part of the local authority family of maintained schools, any future trust schools would go through exactly the same requirements as currently exist; but, of course, we are keen to promote high-quality sixth-form provision as a way to develop choice for young people post 16. That is why we are introducing a presumption for sixth-form expansion, based particularly on those high-performing specialist schools that, very importantly, can also demonstrate that they want to take up a specialism in vocational education, to ensure that we have a greater variety of high-quality opportunities, particularly vocational ones, for the increasing number of young people whom we hope will stay on at school and in training after the age of 16.

Graham Stuart: Is the Minister aware that many pupils from the most deprived areas of Hull leave the city to attend East Riding schools, including those in my constituency? Those pupils bring with them none of the funding that is rightly allocated to support people from deprived areas. What steps is she taking to ensure that money intended to support deprived pupils follows them, whether they are sixth formers or others?

Jacqui Smith: I am sure that the East Riding welcomed the statement I made before Christmas outlining very considerable increases in school funding across the country of 6.8 per cent. per pupil in 2006–07 and 6.7 per cent. per pupil in 2007–08, but perhaps one of the questions that we should also address is how we ensure that parents in Hull feel confident that their children receive quality education in high-quality local schools. We have taken tough action in the past in intervening in respect of local authorities that have not lived up to their responsibility to challenge and support their schools—of course, that included Hull—and we continue to carry on the work that has ensured that schools in disadvantaged areas have improved faster than other schools.

Khalid Mahmood: I welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment to increase revenue funding for 16 to 19-year-olds, but will she look at capital funding for sixth forms, particularly Great Barr and Hampstead Hall schools in my constituency? They are making a huge investment in keeping on pupils and increasing the number of pupils, but the issue that they have at the moment is with the capital works needed to do so? Will she consider asking local authorities and the Learning and Skills Council to support those sixth forms that want to expand in that way?

Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Of course, the considerable investment in constituencies such as his from the building schools for the future programme provides important opportunities not just to add sixth-form provision but to remodel and completely rebuild secondary schools. Last year, we brought together capital funding streams from the Learning and Skills Council and schools capital funding in one clear 16-to-19 capital pot, and I am sure that access to that will be able to support some of the proposals that he and the Government rightly want for his constituency.

Engineering Courses

Mark Pritchard: What her policy is on the provision of education courses for engineers; and if she will make a statement.

Phil Hope: We have established an employer-led sector skills council, the Science Engineering Manufacturing Technologies Alliance—SEMTA—to help shape the provision of learning and training for engineers. SEMTA is currently working on one of the first new specialised diplomas in engineering for 14 to 16-year-olds and is developing sector skills agreements to assess the skill needs of the industry and will inform the engineering teaching supplied in colleges and higher education.

Mark Pritchard: Is the Minister aware that Harper Adams university college, Telford college of art and technology and the university of Wolverhampton have a proud tradition of supplying engineers to the public and private sectors in Shropshire? But is he also aware that his colleagues in other Departments are slowly dismantling the defence and manufacturing sectors in my constituency, so what is the point of young people going into engineering, particularly engineering apprenticeships, if there are no jobs for them?

Phil Hope: I congratulate the colleges to which the hon. Gentleman referred, which are doing an excellent job providing good-quality training for young people as a result of the extra funding we made available to schools and colleges in his constituency. I understand his concern and that of others about decisions being made by the Ministry of Defence, and I am sure that the MOD will take full account of his representations and those of other Members with similar concerns. I had the privilege of making presentations to the top apprentices in the armed forces; they are fabulous young people, doing a brilliant job and providing much more security for our nation because their talents are in our armed services.

Bill Olner: Will my hon. Friend constantly talk up all engineering skills? I thank him for the very good speech he made last night at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, which itself wants to promote engineering, unlike Opposition colleagues. There is a huge skills gap and we must address it.

Phil Hope: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. It is true that every product and every activity of this country relies on the skills of engineers. Without engineers the bright ideas that we know are out there stay on the drawing board. Engineers are absolutely essential to the future of our nation's economy and the prosperity of all our businesses. Last night's reception at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers was excellent; many MPs attended to support engineering in the UK. I pay tribute to them and to companies such as Rolls-Royce and initiatives such as formula student, where universities work with businesses to make a real success of promoting the UK's engineering skills.

Nadine Dorries: I hope that the House will join me in congratulating Harlington school in my constituency on achieving specialist science college status this week. However, we are all concerned that a number of university science departments have closed over the past two years. Will the Minister explain the rationale of establishing science colleges while closing university science departments?

Phil Hope: I am delighted that Harlington school has benefited from extra Government investment to support science in schools. There is a positive and growing relationship between universities and industry in developing new courses to ensure that the industry recruits the type of students, especially engineers, as well as science and manufacturing specialists, who can provide new developments. Partnership is the most important thing—between universities and organisations and companies such as Rolls-Royce and Airbus. Such partnerships will ensure that we deliver both quality and the quantity of skilled engineers that our country requires.

Ashok Kumar: As a former chemical engineer, I too congratulate the Minister on his speech at the institution. As the Government are seriously considering and exploring the nuclear option for our energy programme, has my hon. Friend assessed whether we have adequate undergraduates studying physics and nuclear engineering to deliver that option?

Phil Hope: Again, I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks—perhaps I should quit while I am ahead.
	We are attracting more undergraduates to science courses. This year, there has been a 10 per cent. increase in the number of applicants for science courses, so we are making huge progress. Perhaps some of the science and engineering skills that those young people are developing will be needed by the Conservatives as they develop their new flip-flop machine.

John Hayes: The Minister's leader in waiting—the Chancellor—says that our
	"economic destiny . . . depends upon establishing leadership in skills",
	but the Leitch review reported that even if the Government meet their target for skills by 2020,
	"at least 4 million adults will still not have literacy skills expected of an 11 year old and 12 million"
	will be without the equivalent numeracy skills. It said that the UK will be
	"positioned at best, in the middle of the OECD ranking"
	for skills.
	As the Minister said, engineering is key, yet the sector skills council says that registrations for level 3 qualifications have dropped by 36 per cent. and that level 4 certifications are at "a very low level". No wonder the national employer skills survey shows that skills shortages account for 13,000 vacancies in engineering alone. Why has not the Minister grasped that we have a skills crisis, and furthermore—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There should be only one supplementary.

Phil Hope: The hon. Gentleman is right to identify a real challenge that faces us. We have trebled the number of apprenticeships from 70,000 a year to 255,000 a year, and completion rates are going up, too, but we need to go further. We have delivered 3.5 million courses in basic skills and 1 million adults have received basic skills qualifications. The train2gain programme will provide free training for employers, up to a full level 2 qualification, and we are trialling level 3 pilots in the north-west and the west midlands to provide training for employers that need level 3 qualifications. We are delivering a huge and ambitious skills strategy, so I hope that we will have support from both sides of the House to ensure that it is a success.

Patrick McFadden: I am sorry to have missed what sounds like an excellent speech by the Minister last night. May I assure him that there remains in the west midlands a first-class network of engineering, aerospace and technological skills? Will he assure his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence that if they locate defence training projects in the region, they will be able to plug into an excellent network of engineering skills and training resources?

Phil Hope: I will draw the remarks of my hon. Friend and others to the attention of my colleagues in the Ministry of Defence. The important thing is that we drive forward the skills agenda as it is appropriate to local areas. We know, for example, that engineering and manufacturing are a priority for future funding in the west midlands. We thus need to ensure that when we roll out the level 3 training pilots engineering becomes a particular priority so that we can deliver the engineers whom we need to make our economy a success.

Sure Start/Children's Fund

Daniel Rogerson: If she will make a statement on the future of Sure Start and the children's fund.

Beverley Hughes: Sure Start children's centres and the children's fund are central to the Government's determination to improve outcomes and life chances for all young children. Children's centres deliver a wide range of integrated services for under-fives and their families. By 2010, there will be 3,500 centres. Local authorities are responsible for their development, with partners. The children's fund is designed to ensure that preventive approaches are delivered locally, and delivery plans for children's fund partnerships have been agreed for the period up to 2008.

Daniel Rogerson: I should perhaps declare a non-pecuniary interest in that my family has attended Sure Start events, which have been excellent, and my sister works for the children's fund. Both schemes have provided excellent opportunities for people in my constituency, but they suffer from two problems. First, when delivering a scheme in a rural area with many small communities, they have a real funding problem if they are to provide the same opportunities in multiple locations. Secondly, they are insecure about what will happen when funding ends in 2008. Will the Minister agree to meet representatives from North Cornwall to discuss the situation?

Beverley Hughes: I am really pleased that the hon. Gentleman and his family and friends have reaped the benefits of our investment in Sure Start. Sure Start is going well in North Cornwall precisely for the reasons that he identifies. Sure Start local programmes are pushing the boundaries to reach wider rural areas and helping us to learn how to reach small communities. There will be considerable investment in Cornwall for the next two phases of development of children's centres, with just about £7.5 million in revenue and capital for phase 1 and a further £5.5 million for phase 2. He can expect further children's centres in his constituency due to those phases, and I would be happy to meet a delegation.

Brian Iddon: I represent some of the most deprived wards in the country, where Sure Start and children's centres have made a real difference, not only in terms of education. An holistic approach is taken: children's health is improving and so is the community. I ask my right hon. Friend to continue to target such centres on the most deprived wards in the land.

Beverley Hughes: My hon. Friend makes an important point. As the House knows, we are moving from an area-based local programme targeted on disadvantaged areas to a mainstream integrated service for all under-fives, with a children's centre in every community by 2010. However, I assure my hon. Friend that our focus for the full offering of fully integrated services will remain on disadvantaged areas, because we know that if we help disadvantaged children to improve their attainment early in their lives that will continue through their primary and secondary years and improve their life chances. The Government are determined to do that.

Peter Soulsby: There are three Sure Starts in my constituency. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital that local authorities are fully engaged in the work of Sure Starts and are able effectively to monitor and support the work of Sure Starts in their area?

Beverley Hughes: Yes, I do. Through the children's trust arrangements, local authorities are taking a lead. I want local authorities to deliver the plans that they have set out for all the children's centres in their areas over the next four or five years. It is also important, however, that local authorities accept their responsibility for working with private and voluntary sector partners and with health and employment services, because the integration that we need in children's centres requires all those other partners to be fully involved. I expect local authorities to take a lead in ensuring that that happens.

Teaching Accommodation (St. Ambrose College)

Graham Brady: What assessment she has made of the adequacy of teaching accommodation at St. Ambrose college in Altrincham; and if she will make a statement.

Maria Eagle: My Department is aware of the issues surrounding the suitability of the school's accommodation. Officials have met the head teacher and the Department's architects have visited the school. Following that visit, the school and the local authority used some funding from existing capital programmes to address pupils' immediate needs in respect of the dilapidated classrooms at the school.

Graham Brady: I am glad that the Minister is aware of the problems at St. Ambrose college. Ofsted said that the teaching accommodation is
	"old and cramped and at times . . . makes learning difficult",
	but that the school is none the less excellent. Parents at the school have raised £500,000 toward the necessary improvements and they were disappointed that the bid for DFES assistance was turned down. Will the hon. Lady give me and the parents an undertaking that when another bid is submitted her Department will consider it as a matter of urgency, and that she will assist efforts to provide a proper, functioning teaching environment at St. Ambrose?

Maria Eagle: I understand the disappointment felt by the school and its head teacher about its bid not being successful in the latest round for targeted capital funding. I am perfectly happy to advise the school, through the hon. Gentleman, on how to improve its bid, which was somewhat disappointing. There were more than 200 bids from the voluntary aided sector alone and, unfortunately, St. Ambrose's bid came too low to receive money. That is not to say that the school cannot improve its bid in future and give itself a better chance of receiving the funds that it requires.

Schools White Paper

Robert Wilson: What assessment she has made of the Education and Skills Committee report on the schools White Paper; and if she will make a statement.

Ruth Kelly: I have read with great interest the Select Committee report on the White Paper. I was pleased that the report accepted the key building blocks of the White Paper and welcomed without reservation our proposed reforms in personalisation, discipline and behaviour, and improving the quality of teaching and leadership. The report also contained a number of detailed recommendations, to which I shall respond in due course.

Robert Wilson: Having started the process of making concessions to her Back-Bench rebels, will the right hon. Lady share with the House the Government's red lines in the education White Paper and the soon-to-be-published education Bill?

Ruth Kelly: Of course I can share those red lines. We want to raise standards and increase investment in our schools, and give schools the freedom and flexibility that they need to forge links with one another and external partners to do the best for every single child in every school throughout the country. Those have always been our red lines. They remain so, and I am completely committed to carrying them through to legislation.

Barry Sheerman: My right hon. Friend knows that I am not often described as a Back-Bench rebel. The Select Committee produced a majority report, and we were proud of its quality. We are quite pleased with much of my right hon. Friend's response, but will she assure the House that she is still willing to improve the Bill in the next few days before it is prepared and we receive a copy, I believe, next week? Will she assure the House that the full import of the Bill will ban all interviews, and schools will have to obey the admissions code?

Ruth Kelly: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the Select Committee report. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Reading, East (Mr. Wilson) and his colleagues decided to play politics with a constructive submission to the debate. I remind my hon. Friend—I have great respect for him and for his contribution to the debate—that we do not yet have a Bill. However, he is quite right—in future, schools must follow the admissions code, and they will not be allowed to interview. We will have a co-ordinated admissions system. I want excellence for every child in the country, but I also want a system that is fair and is seen to be fair. That is why I could clarify for my hon. Friend and his Committee the fact that the system will promote both excellence and equity.

Nicholas Winterton: The Secretary of State clearly wants to improve the quality of education. Does she believe that the Select Committee report gave sufficient thought to the teaching in schools of technical and engineering education, which is critical to the future economy of this country, particularly manufacturing? I accept that the Secretary of State is genuine in what she is seeking to do, but does she believe that sufficient emphasis and attention has been given to technical and engineering teaching in our schools?

Ruth Kelly: Yes. I am delighted to remind the House that the education Bill will include provisions to introduce a new vocational curriculum in our schools, which, over time, will introduce 14 specialised diplomas, including one in engineering. By 2008, every child in the country will have the opportunity to study one of five specialised diplomas while we work to deliver all 14 in a system that will require schools to collaborate with one another to provide the best possible personalised education and vocational education for our pupils.

Jeff Ennis: My right hon. Friend will know that the Select Committee report recommended the introduction of a system of benchmarking for secondary school pupils receiving free school meals or for parents who receive the working families tax credit. That is a way not of introducing a quota system but of introducing an added-value measure that will improve the social mix in all secondary schools. Will she give serious consideration to incorporating that measure in the Bill when it is introduced in the House?

Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend is right. Neither he nor I want a system of quotas for schools. We want every school to take seriously their responsibility to widen access to ensure that every child, no matter what their family type or background, has the opportunity to apply for admission. There should not be any barriers outside the school that say, "Sorry, you're not welcome here." The role of the admissions forum, which was developed after the 2002 legislation, is very important, not just in co-ordinating admissions informally with schools and the local authority but in reporting cases in which schools breach the admissions code to the adjudicator.

Edward Davey: I welcome the Secretary of State's letter to the Chairman of the Select Committee as a step in the right direction, but why, when she talks of giving schools more freedom, is she retaining so much control in Whitehall? Why cannot all schools be given more freedom on the curriculum, for example, and why must a local authority that wants to compete to build a new community school ask for her permission? Would not real reform see her powers cut, not increased?

Ruth Kelly: I am glad the hon. Gentleman has welcomed my clarifications to the Chairman of the Select Committee. I hope the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will now give a commitment to back the Bill. He is right. There is already significant freedom over the curriculum through the national curriculum. Schools have the ability to innovate and they can apply to the Secretary of State for the power to innovate further. In the Bill we will propose that all trust schools within a particular trust are able to take up the power to innovate, so they can experiment with different approaches in the curriculum if they can make a strong educational case for doing so. Within the 14 to 19 curriculum, working perhaps with local business foundations and businesses where they can secure increased investment, schools as groups of schools may decide to come together to offer a different curriculum to their students. That is the sort of case that we will consider on its merits.

David Chaytor: Of the many interesting policies described in the White Paper, how many will require primary legislation?

Ruth Kelly: We have set out all the measures that will require primary legislation in the annexe to the White Paper, but in addition I have committed the Government to banning interviewing, so there will be more measures requiring legislation than were originally set out in the annexe. The list is comprehensive, although my hon. Friend is right to suggest that what we are doing is building on what is seen to be working. We are building on the governance model of voluntary aided schools. We are building on the relationship with external partners seen in the specialist school system. We are building on the relationship between schools that is seen in the academies programme as well, allowing them the freedom and flexibility to develop in a way that drives up standards across the board. We are also introducing safeguards in primary legislation to make sure that the system is fair.

David Willetts: Is not the central message of the Government's White Paper that the future of education is not a monopoly of conventional local authority schools, but much more diversity of provision, with local authorities increasingly acting as commissioners? That is why I hope the meeting that the Secretary of State has at Downing street today with potential backers of trusts is a success. It is also why I was pleasantly surprised to see from her briefing note to the parliamentary Labour party that the announcements that she made the other day
	"do not dilute the essence of the reforms".
	We hope that that is true, but the trouble is that every one of her so-called clarifications looks very much like a retreat. Does she not recognise that there is a clear majority across the House of Commons for real reform of public services? Instead of prevaricating and settling for second best, will the Secretary of State pledge today that there will be no more concessions?

Ruth Kelly: I am glad the hon. Gentleman welcomes our commitment to diversity in the school system, which has driven up standards in every school across the country over the past eight years. He is right that local authorities will have a strategic role. The best local authorities already have a strategic role in education, and I want that delivered in every local authority across the country. He asks me whether we are diluting the reforms. We are not. We are making sure that excellence is accompanied by equity—that parents choose schools, rather than schools choosing parents. If the hon. Gentleman says that our commitment to no new selection in schools is watering down our proposals, all Labour Members and the wider public will see what he and his colleagues stand for.

School Selection

Gordon Prentice: How many schools interview parents as part of the selection process for pupils.

Jacqui Smith: We do not survey school admission arrangements nationally. However, from a recent London survey we know that three schools have interviewing as part of their admission arrangements—the London Oratory school in Hammersmith and Fulham, and St. Joseph's college and St. Coloma convent school in Croydon. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, we will legislate to end that practice.

Gordon Prentice: It only took my question to force that change in Government policy, so I shall try again. My friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis) has raised the issue of admissions forums. If, for example, a school has a disproportionate number of children on free school meals, how would the admissions forum decide whether to refer the matter to the adjudicator?

Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend is in good company in pushing for the end of interviewing. In 2003, the Church of England and the Catholic Church supported our guidance in the code of practice to end interviewing, and they have pushed us to take legislative action—I know that he likes to associate himself with such allies. We will enable admissions forums, which involve schools, local authorities and significant parts of the community, to determine whether schools are behaving in line with the new code of practice by, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, welcoming all pupils and delivering fair access. Where they determine that that is not the case, they will have a new power to report schools to the adjudicator, which will considerably strengthen the current position.

Edward Leigh: I happen to know the London Oratory quite well. It has always interviewed parents, it is a beacon school, and it involves a genuine social and academic mix of pupils. Why should that school, which has fought a successful court case to protect its ethos, be told by Government diktat that it should no longer interview parents? Is it fair that people who have enjoyed the services of an excellent school are pulling up the ladder behind them?

Jacqui Smith: I repeat that the good practice has not been determined by this Government alone. The Catholic Church and the Church of England asked us to act, because, like us, they recognise that we need fair, objective and transparent admissions arrangements. There is considerable doubt whether interviewing fulfils those criteria so, along with the Churches, we believe that the time is right to move away from that practice and to make the situation clear in legislation.

Eric Illsley: On the question of interviews, and whether cost is a barrier to take-up, will my right hon. Friend examine admissions policies in relation to informal methods of selection—for example, when schools insist on a particular type of uniform, which must be purchased from a particular expensive outlet—which have been highlighted in recent reports? The media recently highlighted a case in which a headmaster insisted on children wearing a particular sports outfit manufactured by Nike, which is the most expensive in the range.

Jacqui Smith: I agree with my hon. Friend that such restrictions on uniform are unacceptable. I am a strong proponent of school uniform, which benefits schools, but we have made it clear—we will reinforce this point in guidance—that uniform should not be disproportionately expensive and that it should not be confined to certain suppliers. School uniform is useful in developing the right attitudes within a school, but it should not be used to discriminate in deciding who gets into a school.

Nick Gibb: The real issue is not a school's intake, but what happens within a school. Does the Minister agree that setting children in ability groups—selection within a school—enables the curriculum to be tailored to each child's ability and aptitude, with resulting higher standards? If she agrees, why is it that 60 per cent. of lessons still take place in mixed-ability classes, the proportion of mixed-ability teaching is rising not falling, and half of all English lessons are still taught in mixed-ability classes?

Jacqui Smith: I do accept the significance of setting—that is why I am pleased that following the action that we have taken over the past eight years, more children are taught in set classes than previously. There are two challenges for the approach that the hon. Gentleman takes. First, he has to begin to square his supposed commitment to trusting the professionalism—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not for the Minister to talk about the commitment of a political party. Will she please take her seat? I have told her before—this is becoming quite a regular thing with the Minister. It is the Minister's duty to tell us about her stewardship of her portfolio.

Jacqui Smith: I apologise, Mr. Speaker.
	I believe that our approach to setting should not suggest that Whitehall writes the timetables of schools across the country, but trust in the professional judgment of head teachers, alongside the guidance that it is possible for us as a Government to provide, as we have done and will continue to do. I also believe that the time is right, as we spelled out in the White Paper, to move beyond simply saying that there is benefit in setting pupils within groups, and reach a position whereby we are more able to identify the individual needs of pupils, provide catch-ups where they are falling behind and stretch them more effectively where they have particular gifts and talents. That is why we have accentuated, and will invest in, further personalised learning in our schools.

Sure Start

Helen Goodman: If she will make a statement on the Sure Start programme in the north-east.

Beverley Hughes: There are 62 Sure Start local programmes in the north-east, most of which will become Sure Start children's centres by March this year. Children's centres will provide integrated support services for parents of young children under five. There are 53 designated children's centres operational in the north-east, and we propose to increase that to more than 250 by September this year, and to more than 340 by March 2008.

Helen Goodman: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. My constituents are grateful for the two Sure Starts that have opened in the past six months—one in Evenwood and one in Bishop Auckland—where children and families are enjoying activities and facilities that they never had before. However, I get complaints from people who are unable to go to Sure Start. Can the Minister say what new Sure Starts and children's centres are planned for the constituency?

Beverley Hughes: I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for her work in supporting and promoting early years services, particularly Sure Start. By September 2006, there will be another 30 designated children's centres in County Durham, including a total of five in her constituency. There will be more in phase 2, but we do not yet have their locations; I will let her know as soon as I am aware of them.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

The Solicitor-General was asked—

Thames Valley Crown Prosecution Service

Tony Baldry: When he next expects to meet the head of the Thames Valley Crown Prosecution Service to discuss resources.

Mike O'Brien: I met the chief Crown prosecutor for Thames Valley in Oxford on 6 October. I have spoken to her several times since, including a few days ago. I do not have a date set in my diary for a further meeting. Thames Valley CPS has received a significant increase in resources and has deployed them in recruiting new front-line staff. I am pleased to say that there has been a study by the police and CPS in relation to resources at Banbury, which I hope will result in an increase there.

Tony Baldry: I hope that when the Solicitor-General met the head of Thames Valley CPS she explained that there have been several instances in Banbury magistrates court where cases have been set down for a not guilty contest, witnesses have been summonsed and fixtures have been arranged, but the case has had to be abandoned because a prosecutor has not turned up. That includes cases involving assault and burglary. That is simply unacceptable, and it is unfair to everyone involved. It is unfair to the victims, unfair to the defendants—who cannot clear their names—and unfair to the police, who have spent a lot of time working up a case only to see it abandoned. Will the Solicitor-General ensure that there are sufficient resources, and that Thames Valley CPS ensures that prosecutors turn up at court to prosecute not guilty pleas?

Mike O'Brien: Since 2003 the number of prosecutors in Thames Valley has increased by 20 per cent., to 70 lawyers today. Eleven lawyers are specifically recruited to deal with issues such as charging. The CPS in the area has recently had an increase in its budget from £6 million to £7 million a year, which is one of the biggest budget increases for the CPS in the country.
	The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there was an issue about certain cases—three, according to my understanding—which were subject to a pre-trial review. A request was made to vacate some dates for a trial and the CPS took the view that it would accept guilty pleas to some offences. The pleas were accepted and the cases did not proceed to trial. I have some concerns about that and have asked for a report about it. The hon. Gentleman therefore raises an issue about which I would be concerned, but I am told that an error was made, and the chief Crown prosecutor assures me that it will be rectified.

Identity Theft

Anne McIntosh: If he will make a statement on the work of the Serious Fraud Office on identity theft.

Mike O'Brien: Cases of identity fraud are normally prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service, and no case has so far met the criteria for prosecution by the Serious Fraud Office. However, the Serious Fraud Office engages in policy work on identity theft through its participation in the fraud review.

Anne McIntosh: Will the Solicitor-General be good enough to consider a constituency case in which all of an individual's mail has been redirected to a specific address, but the police are taking no action and no case will therefore be brought? Can he also confirm that the Serious Fraud Office will investigate the huge fraud perpetrated against the Treasury?

Mike O'Brien: There is already an ongoing investigation of the Treasury matter. At this stage, it is probably better if I do not comment substantially on that, but my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General recently made a statement that set out some of the background. The particular case to which the hon. Lady refers sounds like a matter for the police to investigate initially. If she has concerns about the police not taking it up, I shall bring that to the attention of Home Office Ministers.

David Taylor: Will the Solicitor-General confirm whether the legislation on identity theft applies only to individuals? Could it also apply to organisations? Yesterday the Prime Minister referred to a political party that claimed to be Liberal, Conservative and a new Labour successor. Is not that a prima facie case of fraud?

Mike O'Brien: That is an interesting view. Political parties sometimes adopt names, and there are appropriate means—through the Electoral Commission, for example—of dealing with that.

David Heath: Identity fraud is undoubtedly a serious problem, although it does not perhaps cost as much as the Government's figure of £1.7 billion, which the banking and credit card group the Association for Payment Clearing Services—APACS—described as
	"a good story to scare people with".
	Nevertheless, as we have the Serious Fraud Office and the City of London police, who have specific skills in dealing with fraud, but a patchy approach to fraud in other police forces, will the Solicitor-General, as part of the reorganisation of police, hold serious talks with the Home Secretary to ascertain whether we can adopt a better integrated approach to fraud throughout the country, thus ensuring that prosecutions occur in cases such as that raised by the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh)?

Mike O'Brien: Certainly the national hi-tech crime unit, the Serious Fraud Office and the National Criminal Intelligence Service liaise about fraud operations. Fraud is changing enormously, and that is why a Bill on the matter will be introduced. The new Bill will help us tackle some identity fraud. However, in recent years we have developed greater unity between the different organisations that deal with fraud. The national hi-tech crime unit is one mechanism that has helped bring things together. The Home Office has worked with the Department of Trade and Industry and others to try to improve the safety and security of people who are the victims of fraud, especially small businesses and consumers who use the internet. Much work is already being done. The Metropolitan police and the City of London police are at the forefront of that, but there is a great deal of co-operation throughout the country.

Rob Marris: One of the reasons for identity theft is that fraudsters use it to get credit, and credit is too easy to obtain in this country. In the course of my right hon. Friend's policy work in this area, will he ensure that the Serious Fraud Office and the other organisations to which he has referred liaise with banks and other institutions offering credit to ensure that the ease of getting credit does not encourage identity theft? We need preventive work on this.

Mike O'Brien: Direct liaison on such matters would take place through the Treasury rather than the Serious Fraud Office. The SFO has substantial links to the banks and other such organisations, but they are primarily for the purpose of dealing with large-scale fraud. That body would not therefore be the best placed to address these issues. None the less, the DTI, the Treasury and the Home Office are all working to ensure that we have effective policies to deal with them.

Dominic Grieve: The Solicitor-General will be aware from previous questions that there is disquiet about the way in which identity theft is being handled. Perhaps part of the problem is that it is often not suitable for the Serious Fraud Office to deal with such cases. There is no evidence that a great deal of serious fraud is perpetrated in this way, but there is a lot of evidence of minor fraud. In many cases, the person who has been impersonated is not necessarily the loser, but the taking of their identity is being used to defraud others. Will the Solicitor-General take these points on board and give the House an assurance that further thought will be given to more active engagement by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service in dealing with this problem? I have picked up complaints from constituents that when their identity appears to have been taken by someone else, their cases are not being pursued with the kind of energy that one would expect.

Mike O'Brien: Identity fraud is a growing problem, which the police and the various prosecuting authorities are aware of. The Home Office has certainly been doing a lot of research into how best to tackle it. A great deal of identity fraud is committed by offshore operations, which are obviously much more difficult to prosecute because they are outside our jurisdiction. However, we have entered into agreements with other countries under which they will prosecute people who are not committing offences in those countries, but are doing so here. We were undertaking that work when I was in the DTI. The Government are very concerned about identity fraud, and much of the work on co-ordinating our activity involves dealing with new aspects of identity fraud that are increasingly becoming a problem. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the police and the prosecuting authorities are taking the subject very seriously.

Deception

Gordon Prentice: How many prosecutions the Crown Prosecution Service has brought since January 2005 against people posting (a) websites purporting to represent UK banks on the internet and (b) sending bogus e-mails from law firms as a way of getting personal and financial details.

Mike O'Brien: I regret that I cannot give my hon. Friend the statistics in the precise form that he has requested, because CPS records identify offences in relation to sections of our legislation rather than the means by which the offence was perpetrated. These internet and e-mail offences could be prosecuted under a range of different laws. When the criminal is in the United Kingdom, it would obviously be possible to secure a prosecution. However, when the criminal generates the material abroad, the question of jurisdiction is more problematic.

Gordon Prentice: I realise that this is a difficult problem, perhaps even an intractable one. However, I am fed up with phishing. I get bogus e-mails from Barclays bank every day—and I do not even bank with Barclays. Is it technically possible to track down the people who post such information on the web?

Mike O'Brien: The answer is sometimes. Research by MessageLabs shows that 18 million phishing e-mails were detected in the course of one year, and we suspect that the numbers have subsequently increased. However, the numbers of phishing e-mails reported by people to the authorities—I am sure that my hon. Friend is one who does that regularly—is actually quite low. So we have the problem that although we are detecting a lot of phishing e-mails and getting anecdotal reports of them, not many people are reporting them to the police and the prosecuting authorities. The national hi-tech crimes unit issued advice on how to avoid such attacks in October 2003, and we are working with the British Bankers Association to try to deal with particular aspects of banking phishing expeditions. It is very difficult to catch some of the people involved, particularly when they are abroad, but the international agreements that we are entering into represent the start of a process of dealing internationally with the internet—which is, after all, an international phenomenon.

Business of the House

Theresa May: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for the coming week?

Geoff Hoon: The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 13 February—A motion to approve a money resolution on the International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Bill, followed by consideration of Lords Amendments to the Identity Cards Bill.
	Tuesday 14 February—Remaining stages of the Health Bill.
	Wednesday 15 February—Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Terrorism Bill, followed by a motion to approve a Statutory Instrument relating to the renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005.
	Thursday 16 February—Motions relating to the draft Social Security Benefits Up-Rating Order 2006 and the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2006, followed by a debate on tackling health inequalities on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Friday 17 February—The House will not be sitting.
	The provisional business for the week following the Constituency recess will include:
	Monday 27 February—Progress on remaining stages of the Government of Wales Bill.
	Tuesday 28 February—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Government of Wales Bill.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 16 February will be:
	Thursday 16 February—A debate on the report from the Treasury Committee on cash machine charges.

Theresa May: I thank the Leader for the House for giving us the business for the coming week. He will not be surprised to hear me ask again about the date for the Budget, as he knows that the Treasury Committee recommended that two months' notice of the date should be given. We are less than two months away from the Easter recess, so that advice cannot now be met. Will he at least tell us when he expects to be able to give us the date of the Budget?
	Can we have a debate on Lord Carter's review of criminal legal aid, which is being published today? As I am sure that the Leader of the House will know, that is a matter of real concern for high street solicitors.
	Yesterday, a Standing Committee considered the new contract for dentists. As there is a shortage of 1,850 dentists, and only half the population are registered with an NHS dentist, will the Leader of the House make Government time available for a debate on dentistry and the problems faced by those who have no access to an NHS dentist?
	The Government tell us frequently that they are family-friendly and interested in issues for working families. The Childcare Bill finished in Committee on 15 December, and its remaining stages debate has already been postponed once, yet we have no replacement date. Similarly, the Children and Adoption Bill finished in the Lords on 29 November, yet we have no date for the start of its passage through this House. When will those Bills return to the House?
	It was revealed yesterday that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has been holding talks with councils about scrapping next year's local government elections— [Hon. Members: "Disgraceful."] As my hon. Friends say, that is absolutely disgraceful. The Minister for Local Government has said that it is all pure speculation, but as constituents such as mine will want the opportunity next year to vote on the record of their local Liberal Democrat council, which is putting up council tax by 4.95 per cent.—an increase of 20 per cent. over three years—and given the backlog of business in the House, will the Leader of the House confirm that no time will be made available for the legislation necessary to scrap the council elections next year, and that next year's council elections will go ahead?
	Finally, can we have a debate on the public appeal of MPs? I am sure that the Leader of the House will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) has been voted one of the world's 100 sexiest men. [Hon. Members: "Who voted?"] I see that in a BBC poll conducted to find the sexiest Nottinghamshire MP—I have the right county this week—the Leader of the House came seventh. Top of the poll was my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer), second was "none of the above", and the Leader of the House even came behind my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). A debate would, of course, give my right hon. and hon. Friends an opportunity to give the Leader of the House a few tips.

Geoff Hoon: I have always recognised that I need all the help I can get, but I am quite happy with the result of that particular poll—and so is my wife.

James Duddridge: Who voted many times!

Geoff Hoon: As the shadow Leader of the House is in a good mood, let me draw her attention to the shadow Chancellor's proposals for what appears to be a forthcoming shadow Cabinet reshuffle. The shadow Chancellor has made it clear that by the time of the next general election there will be no one in the shadow Cabinet over the age of 50. Honour forbids me to reveal the right hon. Lady's age, but shall we say that if the reports are correct, she will be looking forward to a very early general election—but I have to say that she will be disappointed.
	The date of the Budget will be made known very soon. As for the question of legal aid and high street solicitors, as one who has had ministerial responsibility for the distribution of legal aid in the past, I am confident that the Government will continue to ensure that it is available, and that the considerable amount of money contributed by the taxpayer to support the system will be used to maximum effect.
	The right hon. Lady asked about the availability of dentists. I announced to the House that there would be a debate on tackling health inequalities on Thursday 16 February. I am sure that that will give all Members an opportunity to comment on dentistry as well as other aspects of health care, and also to mention the considerable amount of extra money that the Government have put into health, almost trebling the health budget since 1997.
	As the right hon. Lady said, the Childcare Bill and the Children and Adoption Bill await time in the House of Commons. They will be presented as soon as business allows, but, as I hope I have made clear, we have a very crowded legislative agenda. We are determined to continue the pace of change that the country requires, and that necessarily means that there will be—as ever—significant business on the Floor of the House, not least next week.
	I refer the right hon. Lady to what was said by the Minister of Communities and Local Government about local government elections:
	"We expect and intend the 2007 elections to go ahead. The debate on local government reorganisation is gathering pace—we are having a mature discussion with local government—and we will make our position clear in the Local Government White Paper in the middle of this year."
	I think that that deals with the various points that the right hon. Lady raised. I am grateful to her for raising them.

Jon Trickett: I do not know whether, while having his muesli for breakfast, the Leader of the House managed to glance at the Venezuelan media, but if he has had a media brief, he will know of the storm of protest in that country following the Prime Minister's perhaps somewhat incautious remarks about it during Prime Minister's questions yesterday. Will he find time for a debate on Venezuela, and on United Kingdom-Venezuela politics and relationships? If we cannot agree on Venezuela's international relationships, we might at least be able to celebrate its social gains following the removal of the divisions and inequalities that feature elsewhere in the third world.

Geoff Hoon: I am always impressed by the learning and wide reading of my hon. Friends. I must confess that I managed to miss in my media brief this morning the latest revelations in the Venezuelan media, but that is my loss. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising an issue that I am sure he will have an opportunity to raise again at the next Foreign Office Question Time.

David Heath: The Leader of the House referred to the very busy timetable, and I still think it very unwise to programme three potential defeats in one week, but there we are. I support the view that we need a debate on the Carter review, which is published today. It is not just small high street solicitors who are concerned about this issue; so is everybody who cares about the legal aid system. Indeed, this is a major issue in the context of our welfare state and it deserves proper parliamentary debate.
	I noticed that when the Leader of the House responded to the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) on the question about local government reform, he did not rule it out. Many of us suspect that it will indeed happen, given the Government's passion for reorganising everything—be it the police, local government or health authorities—and making it as uniform as possible, but always bigger than the existing structure. May we therefore have a debate on that issue?
	There will be a statement today on the Child Support Agency but at the same time, the Government are releasing the report of the CSA's chief executive, which might inform debate in this House. May we have a separate statement on that subject, or better still, a debate on it?
	Lastly, I wonder whether there is scope for a replay of parliamentary debates. A couple of months ago, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) introduced the Armed Forces (Parliamentary Approval for Participation in Armed Conflict) Bill, which deals with the royal prerogative and the power to go to war, but it seems that the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) has changed his mind on that subject. When it was last debated, only two Conservatives could find their way to the Division Lobby to support such a proposal. Is it possible to introduce new procedures to deal with flip-flops?

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Gentleman is obviously in lively mood now that the Liberal Democrats have started the process of voting for their new leader. I understand that there is a determined write-in campaign on his behalf to ensure that the current rather narrow field is expanded somewhat by his addition. Labour Members would strongly support that campaign, if only we had access to the ballot papers. Given that Liberal Democrat MPs, who can nominate two people, also get two votes in that election, I sincerely hope that they will use at least one of them to support his campaign.
	I want to make clear the importance of the Carter review, which the Government will deal with very seriously. I have set out clearly our position on local government reform, and there will shortly be a statement and an opportunity for Members to ask questions of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. As for replaying parliamentary debates, it would be useful for the House to hear from the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron)—probably daily; otherwise, we will not be able to keep track of the various changes in policy that he announces.

Barry Sheerman: Will my right hon. Friend consider having an early debate on the BBC charter? This is a crucial time to discuss the role of the BBC in the coming years, and many of us are concerned not about the range of programmes that it provides, which is generally good, but about the independence of its news broadcasting. Many of us believe that it too often follows the 75 per cent. Tory-owned press, rather than giving a firm, independent and dispassionate view of the news, be it on Venezuela or anything else. May we have an early debate on the quality of the BBC news service and the charter?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue. The BBC charter is vital to those of us who believe passionately in public service broadcasting. I assure him that there will be every opportunity to discuss the matter once it is brought to the Floor of the House.

Mark Pritchard: Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on South America in general, not just Venezuela, given the lurch to the left in recent years in that country and in Bolivia? Moreover, there are nine other presidential elections in that region. Is he aware of the potential renationalisation of British Gas assets in Bolivia worth hundreds of millions of pounds, and does he share my concern at President Fidel Castro's instigating what he calls a crusade against capitalism, which will undermine British investments in the region?

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the subject of South America. It is an important part of the world, where significant events are not always well served, either by debates here or generally in the British media. I cannot offer an immediate prospect of an early debate, but I recognise that he raises an important matter that we should take very seriously.

Paul Truswell: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Commons Bill has made progress in another place and is due to come to this House shortly. It contains a number of important provisions and closes a loophole affecting the registration of town and village greens across the country, including my constituency. Given its importance for a number of current cases and applications, will he ensure that the Bill comes before the House at the earliest opportunity?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter, which is important for towns and villages across the country. The provision of public spaces is of vital concern to our constituents. I certainly undertake to ensure that the Bill is dealt with speedily, as soon as we are in a position to do that.

Maria Miller: Will the Leader of the House join me in calling for a statement on the funding of local theatres next week? The Haymarket theatre in my constituency of Basingstoke is being threatened with having its Arts Council funding withdrawn. That would jeopardise its future, only eight months into a 36-month recovery plan. Will he make time for an urgent statement on the matter next week, so that we can get a commitment on Government support for theatre outside London, and ensure that the Arts Council's approach is constructive in all cases?

Geoff Hoon: As a thoroughgoing provincial, I entirely share the hon. Lady's concern about the need to support the theatre and other arts around the country. I cannot offer her the prospect of an urgent debate next week on the theatre in Basingstoke, but I suspect that she has made her point as she intended.

Fraser Kemp: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will want to join me in welcoming this week's announcement of a knife amnesty, but will he also support the decision taken by the chief constables of many UK police forces to have an amnesty on airguns this year? My constituent Andrew Ross was shot in the head last year, and airguns have affected the lives of many of our constituents. Will he urge the Home Office to give the amnesty its full support? We need it to be successful, so that those dangerous weapons are taken off the streets.

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend has campaigned assiduously on this important matter, and I hope that he accepts that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary takes the dangers posed by knives and airguns very seriously. The possession of such weapons is every bit as serious as their use, not least because unfortunately, people who take knives out with them tend to use them, with catastrophic consequences. The Government take the matter extremely seriously, and am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising it.

Peter Robinson: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the review of public administration in Northern Ireland? We had a very short debate on it in Westminster Hall, when there was not even enough time for the Minister to reply. The issue is of critical importance for the future of Northern Ireland, and especially for the public bodies involved. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot find time for such a debate in the House, will he call a sitting of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee, preferably in Northern Ireland, to discuss the matter?

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Gentleman has raised this important issue for the people of Northern Ireland with me on a number of occasions. I assure him that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is keen to ensure that public bodies are able to discuss the full range of issues affecting the people there. The matter that he raises is part of that debate.

David Winnick: For reasons that I have never been able to understand, I have never been included in the list of the sexiest MPs. [Interruption.] As I say, the reasons are totally incomprehensible to me. However, I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the fact that Labour Members are pleased that agreement has been reached in respect of the House of Commons cleaners employed by outside contractors. This is an issue that has been raised only by Labour Members, but now the cleaners are going to get a pay increase, with new sick pay and holiday pay arrangements implemented immediately. That is very good, but will my right hon. Friend do all he can to see that a proper pension scheme is negotiated, too? We receive pensions, so it is only right and proper that those who clean up after us do too. It is an important matter, very much connected to last night's 100th anniversary of the parliamentary Labour party. We continue to fight for social justice, as we have done for the cleaners.

Geoff Hoon: I suspect that my wisest course would be not to comment on my hon. Friend's first observation, but I am delighted that a difficult dispute has been settled. I am grateful to him and other hon. Members for raising an important issue, and it is right to ensure that those who serve us so well in this House, and in Parliament in general, are given appropriate recognition in their remuneration. In particular, we should recognise the importance of their pensions and other ancillary arrangements.

Greg Knight: Does the Leader of the House agree that today's main business is of considerable constitutional significance? That being so, should not part 1 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House? Why has he failed to make provision for that to happen?

Geoff Hoon: The right hon. Gentleman has written to me very recently on behalf of the Procedure Committee to make that point. I am still considering the matter.

Keith Vaz: Surely the shadow Leader of the House is right to say that we ought to have a debate on the Carter review, which is a fundamental review of the legal aid system? We need to look at the spending priorities of the former Lord Chancellor's Department, now the Department for Constitutional Affairs. When my right hon. Friend was a Minister in the Lord Chancellor's Department in 1997, £700,000 was spent on outside consultants. Last year, however, the Department spent £9 million on consultants. This week, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) has raised the fact that there have been cuts of £3 million in specialist legal aid services. May we please have a debate on this very important subject?

Geoff Hoon: I have made it clear that I regard this as an important subject, but my hon. Friend has also dealt with the administration of the legal aid system, and will know that although it is important to ensure that it works effectively on behalf of those of our citizens who require legal assistance, we must also ensure that the system works effectively on behalf of taxpayers, who fund it very extensively. It is right to ensure the most effective delivery of legal aid; that is why we set such store by holding a review, and I anticipate that in due course there will be an opportunity for the matter to be discussed and debated on the Floor of the House.

Michael Weir: The Leader of the House may not yet have had an opportunity to read this morning's edition of The Herald. Had he done so he would have seen, in an article headlined "Ofgem Could Stem Tidal Energy Flow", that a former Minister for Energy has raised concerns about Ofgem's attitude to renewable energy. May we have a debate on Ofgem's role, as many of us are worried that its policies are undermining renewable energy resources?

Geoff Hoon: There is a long list of newspapers that I have not read this morning, and the hon. Gentleman has mentioned one of them. However, I recognise the importance of this issue, and he is right to raise it. I am sure that there will opportunities to discuss it as part of a wider debate on energy policy.

Dan Norris: May we have an early debate on the impact of the Licensing Act 2003? I for one would very much want to be present for it, and would book my seat in advance, as I want to hear the Opposition having to eat their words.

Geoff Hoon: I recall that the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) told the Daily Mail as recently as 24 November last year that the
	"'Government promised the measures would deliver staggered closing times, more power for local people and a reduction in alcohol related crime'",
	and then said
	"'We now know that none of this is true'".
	Perhaps, at a suitable early opportunity, she will be able to tell us just how right we were.

Ann Winterton: I second the request by my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House for a debate on NHS dentistry, which is in crisis and disappearing fast. May we have a specific debate, because a debate on the Adjournment on all NHS matters will mean that dentistry will hardly be raised? I have seen the new contract, which is prescriptive and bureaucratic, and I am not surprised that many dentists will not sign up. Does the Leader of the House recall that previous experiments, in which dentists have been employed directly by the state, with the NHS paying all expenses, have cost the country twice as much as continuing NHS dentists' practices?

Geoff Hoon: I will be here next Thursday and I am sure that the hon. Lady will have the opportunity to be here also. If she catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, she will have the chance to debate dentistry and the other aspects of the NHS that require discussion. However, I suspect that several of my right hon. and hon. Friends would point out the disaster that was dentistry under the last Conservative Government and make it clear that it has been the responsibility of this Government, since 1997, to ensure that the health service can move ahead. The hon. Lady will be able to make her points next Thursday.

Julie Morgan: I would also welcome a debate on the Carter report. Would it be possible to have a debate about the protection given to people who have bought council flats, exercised their right to buy and have long leases? In Tongwynlais in my constituency, owner-occupier constituents face bills for thousands of pounds because Cardiff council has mended the roofs of the blocks of flats, even though the residents thought that the repairs were not necessary. They have been landed with huge bills. In one case, the person is considering selling his flat to pay for the liability. The landlord and tenant legislation is very convoluted, so may we have a debate on that important issue?

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend raises a wider question about the nature of shared ownership and the relevant legal provisions. I know from my constituency that that causes problems for those who have purchased former council accommodation. The Government take it seriously and I am grateful to her for raising the issue.

John Hayes: May we have a debate on Government waste, following the publication by the Taxpayers' Alliance of a book—I am sure that it is on your bedside table, Mr. Speaker—identifying what they claim is £82 billion of Government waste, including more than £800,000 on policing the street meeting held by Abu Hamza after his mosque was closed down and £150,000 spent on new art for the Home Office building? Such a debate would give us a chance to find out how much of the £21.5 billion of savings that the Gershon review identified the Government have actually recovered.

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Gentleman usually raises issues of general concern to the population, but before he relies on that report he might like to check on its provenance. The chairman of the organisation is a Tory councillor, one of the authors of the book is a Tory researcher and the other was a Tory candidate at the last election. That so-called objective report has been described by someone who would probably regard himself as a conservative commentator, Mr. Neil Collins of the Evening Standard, as
	"playing fast and loose with the figures"
	and as using examples of waste compiled over the last eight years, when it is supposed to be an annual report. Before citing such nonsense—and this report is nonsense almost from start to finish—the hon. Gentleman should have regard to the reality of Government spending. We have produced 32,500 more teachers, 86,000 more teaching assistants, 27,000 more doctors, 78,000 nurses and a record number of police officers. That report appears to suggest that none of that extra spending should have been made. The hon. Gentleman should check the Conservative party's position with the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), because it is not clear at the moment.

Rob Marris: As a non-practising solicitor, I urge my right hon. Friend to have a debate on the Carter review of legal aid, but I caution him against having too early a debate. Legal aid is one of the pillars of our society. When the iron curtain came down, there were two main calls, one for parliamentary democracy and the other for the rule of law. One cannot have the rule of law without a proper legal aid system and I would not wish any changes to the present legal aid system, which is under some strain, to be rushed. Therefore, I caution my right hon. Friend against an early debate, although we should perhaps have a debate some time just before the summer recess.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who puts the point in a more measured way than I have been able to do. I should note that this is the first time since I have been in this job that someone has asked for a later debate on a subject.

John Hemming: We need at least two debates on the NHS, to discuss dentists and the purchaser parity adjustment. The phasing out of the purchaser parity adjustment will cost Birmingham £19 million next year, £28 million the year afterwards and £38 in the year after that. It will also affect the constituencies of other hon. Members, so we need an urgent debate on that issue.

Geoff Hoon: That subject also falls within the terms of the debate that I have announced for next week and the hon. Gentleman will be able to join in. Perhaps I will check that he is here next week to make his speech on that subject. I look forward to reading it.

Sally Keeble: I have pressed my right hon. Friend previously about a case that has been held to be sub judice because the Crown Prosecution Service has not made a decision and the inquest could not be concluded. The CPS decided before Christmas that no prosecution would be pursued, but no date has been set for the resumed inquest because the file seems to have got stuck in the system. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is outrageous that two years after the death of a young boy it should be impossible to hold the Government to account for what happened because of delays in the administration of justice?

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend has raised this issue on several previous occasions and I do not wish to test the patience of the House by repeating what I said on those occasions. It is always possible for hon. Members to raise issues in general terms, such as the delay and the time taken by an institution to resolve a problem. We should be careful about commenting on particular cases before they have reached a conclusion. Although my hon. Friend makes a reasonable point about that particular case, there would be difficulties if that approach were adopted generally for most cases. I know that my reply will disappoint my hon. Friend, as it has on previous occasions, but that is an important safeguard on issues that are sub judice. It may not always provide a proper reply as far as she is concerned, but it is right in general terms that we adopt that approach.

George Young: May I press the Leader of the House on the reply that he gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) about next year's local elections? He referred to a Government statement that said that he hoped and expected those elections to take place. Why cannot he say that they will take place?

Geoff Hoon: The right hon. Gentleman is always a model of fairness and clarity, but what I actually said, quoting my right hon. Friend the Minister of Communities and Local Government, was that we expect and intend those elections to take place. That is a clear statement and I do not intend to improve on it.

Paul Flynn: The genuinely shocking news about the use of heroin by a nine-year-old is further proof that there has never been so much heroin on the streets of Britain at such a low price, in spite of the courageous and professional work by our soldiers in Afghanistan. Should we not have a debate and a vote on the deployment of further troops in the Helmand province in Afghanistan, as that is likely to be mission impossible? There is certainly a grave danger that local farmers will be driven into the hands of the Taliban and the lives of our troops will be put in grave peril.

Geoff Hoon: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend in raising that important issue and, indeed, in highlighting the prevalence of heroin use, particularly by very young children, but I am puzzled about his subsequent comments. Clearly, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence suggested when he announced the deployment to Helmand, part of the purpose is obviously to reduce lawlessness in that part of the world, particularly to reduce therefore the ability of those who trade in heroin to take advantage of that lawlessness. It is important in that process that we restrict the opportunity of the Taliban to continue with their appalling terrorism, but that is part of the wider process of ensuring that an elected Government in Kabul have the ability to control the whole of Afghanistan, with necessary benefits not only to the people of Afghanistan but, as my hon. Friend was also implying, to the people of Europe, who suffer so much from the trade in heroin.

William McCrea: As the Leader of the House used Government time yesterday to ensure that over £500,000 would go into the hands of those who do not come to the House—I am speaking about Sinn Fein-IRA—will he use Government time to allow those of us who do come to the House to debate the issues that affect our constituents and to hold direct rule Ministers to book, whether in respect of health, education or other issues?

Geoff Hoon: There are clearly opportunities for the hon. Gentleman, who is assiduous in the use of parliamentary time, to hold Ministers not to book, but to account, which is obviously what he does very successfully. There are opportunities during Northern Ireland questions to raise such issues, and I am sure that he will take full advantage of them.

Bob Blizzard: My right hon. Friend may have heard this morning's announcement that Unilever is to sell off its Birds Eye frozen food industry across Europe, including the factory in Lowestoft, where 800 people work—a big slice of our local economy. The Lowestoft food factory is one of the most efficient and productive in the country. It received factory of the year and manufacturer of the year awards last year. It should therefore be an attractive part of the business for a new buyer. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time to stress the positive attributes of Lowestoft? Will he ensure that the Government and the East of England Development Agency do all that they can to encourage prospective buyers? May we hold a debate on food processing in this country, so that we can understand what is going on in that industry?

Geoff Hoon: As someone who has been a fairly regular visitor to my hon. Friend's constituency, I know what a thriving and vital place Lowestoft is and the importance of that factory to the local economy. An early resolution is essential, given the obvious uncertainty that the announcement must have caused the people of Lowestoft. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry would be willing to see my hon. Friend to discuss these matters and to find out what help the Government can provide.

David Evennett: There are real concerns across London about health, education, the environment, transport and how the Government have failed to deal with those issues for the capital. Will the Leader of the House therefore find time to hold a general debate on London issues on the Floor of the House in the near future?

Geoff Hoon: I will certainly add the hon. Gentleman's suggestion to the long list of other suggestions that I have received. I recognise the importance of London, but I do not entirely recognise his description. The Government have provided significant support to the people of London, to its infrastructure and to ensure the effective delivery of public services in our capital city.

Jim Sheridan: As chair of the parliamentary group of the Transport and General Workers Union, I congratulate my right hon. Friend and all those involved on bringing about a satisfactory conclusion to the cleaners' dispute, but does he agree that low-paid workers and more vulnerable workers are also concerned about the ever-rising cost of energy? He may be aware that British Gas has trailed in the press a price increase of up to 25 per cent. That will cause tremendous concern among low-paid workers, pensioners and businesses. Will he arrange time in the House for a debate on those proposed increases, so that we can investigate the reasons behind them?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for referring to the resolution of the dispute involving our cleaners. He has played a significant role in that process and I congratulate him on his efforts. It is important that the House continues to debate the wider issues of energy. We have recently held debates on energy. It is obviously a matter of great concern, particularly to the poorest members of our society, that energy price increases might significantly affect their ability to enjoy other aspects of their lives. That is obviously part of the wider Government commitment to ensure that we use our energy efficiently and effectively—something that the Government take extremely seriously.

Bob Spink: May we have a debate that is dedicated exclusively to cancer care, so that we can address cancer patients' access to the most effective and appropriate drug treatments, such as Herceptin, so that we can tackle the postcode prescribing lottery and so that Essex MPs can ensure that we save our excellent cancer centre at Southend-on-Sea hospital?

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that important issue, which affects every family throughout the country. The Government have given a great deal of priority to cancer care. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not refer directly to Herceptin. As two judicial reviews are under way, it would not be right for me to make any observation about those cases at this stage. However, I absolutely assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government know that cancer care is vital. We have put enormous extra resources into cancer care, and I am delighted that that extra money is having some effect in improving the care of and results for those who suffer from that dreadful disease.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Child Support Agency

John Hutton: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the future of the Child Support Agency.
	The previous Administration established the Child Support Agency because the system of collecting maintenance through the courts had lost the confidence of parents. That was the right decision to make. Different courts applied different criteria, resulting in widely differing settlements for families in similar situations. Too often, cases took months to come to court. Enforcement was difficult and costly.
	The Child Support Agency was designed to provide better support to children and families, by making sure that parental responsibilities were properly enforced. Those were the right foundations upon which to build the new agency, and it is why the Child Support Act 1991 enjoyed widespread support. But as we know, over the years, those good intentions have not been translated into good performance. When we came to office, the agency was still costing more to run than it collected in maintenance and taking longer to process claims than the courts.
	The Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 made important changes. Maintenance calculations were simplified. For the first time, parents on benefits could keep up to £10 of the maintenance that they received. Tougher enforcement measures were introduced.
	The performance of the agency has improved. It has nearly doubled the number of children receiving maintenance payments. About £600 million of maintenance will be collected this year—twice the level of 1997. That improved performance is a credit to the hard work of the agency staff, who are doing a good job in very difficult circumstances. They have had to cope with a great deal of criticism—much of it unfair—and I want to place firmly on the record today my appreciation of their commitment and dedication. Notwithstanding the efforts of its staff, the performance of the agency remains unacceptable.
	The agency currently manages 1.5 million cases. Of the 670,000 cases assessed as having a positive maintenance liability, just over 400,000 parents with care are actually receiving any payment via the collection service or have a Maintenance Direct arrangement in place. There is a backlog of over 300,000 cases. Despite having collected £4.5 billion in maintenance, more than £3 billion of debt has also built up, and it has already cost the taxpayer well over £3 billion to administer.
	Only 30 per cent. of lone parents receive any maintenance. Less than 15 per cent. of lone parents on benefit receive any maintenance through the CSA. There is little evidence to suggest that outcomes are any better than under the court system that it replaced. That is why, last April, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), now the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, asked the new chief executive of the CSA to undertake a review of the agency's operations. Today I am publishing his recommendations on my Department's website.
	The review recommended a restructuring of the agency's operation to increase productivity and performance. It proposed a plan that included migration and conversion, new legislative powers to write off debt and close cases and the greater use of outsourcing to support the removal of backlogs and collect debt. The plan required an additional £300 million of public money over the next three years, over and above the agency's £400 million a year current budget.
	Even if the plan were fully implemented, however, at the end of the three-year period only half of lone parents would receive maintenance, only one third of lone parents on benefit would receive any money, and although more parents would receive maintenance, about half those assessed would be eligible to receive only £5 or less per week. In those circumstances, I do not believe that it would be right to commit £300 million of additional public money in that way.
	As we all know, the CSA deals with many of the most difficult cases. In one in five cases the parents have never lived together; 5 per cent. question paternity; half of absent parents have no contact at all with their children; about 15 per cent. have links to other cases—often more than one; and 70 per cent. of new applicants are on benefit and thus have no choice but to use the CSA.
	Given that complexity, we should be suspicious of simple solutions, because there are none. Walking away is not the answer, nor is handing over wholesale the work of the CSA, in its existing structure, to another Department. More than 500,000 children currently benefit from maintenance payments collected through the CSA and we must ensure that that continues, but it is time for fundamental change.
	Having had an opportunity to consider the matter over the past three months, I have concluded that neither the agency nor the policy is fit for purpose. I have, therefore, asked Sir David Henshaw—a distinguished public servant—to redesign completely our system of child support. The primary objective must be to ensure the welfare of children. Sir David will set out both the policy and the operational structure needed to achieve that. He will need to consider how best to ensure that parents meet their responsibilities to their children, while minimising the cost to the taxpayer.
	In undertaking his task, Sir David will need to address several difficult choices and questions. What support and advice can be given to help parents reach a fair solution as to how best to support their children if their relationship breaks down? Can we find a more cost-effective way of ensuring that children get maintenance payments? What is the right balance between enforcing responsibilities and getting more money to children and value for the taxpayer? Should benefit claimants be forced to use the agency even if they have informal arrangements in place? Should the Government continue to chase cases where the parents have decided to get back together again and restart their relationship? In some instances, the agency is chasing cases where the end result will be recycling money in the same household, with no benefit whatever to the child.
	There will be an opportunity for all those in the House and beyond to make their views known to Sir David and his team. He will seek the widest possible involvement in his work. Just as the original proposals commanded widespread cross-party endorsement, my ambition is to ensure that the new framework enjoys similar support. I have asked Sir David to deliver his findings to me before the summer recess, and today I have placed in the Library copies of the terms of reference for his work, which have been drawn as widely as possible to allow all options for reform to be considered fully.
	The Government have a clear responsibility to those already using the agency to ensure that it delivers for children and parents, so today I am publishing proposals that will help to stabilise and improve the performance of the agency in the short term. The plan will make more effective use of current enforcement powers, improve the productivity and effectiveness of the new IT system and increase debt recovery. I am thus making available from the Department's existing resources investment of up to £90 million over the next three years, to support that short-term recovery.
	That investment will of course be subject to review in the light of Sir David's work and the achievement of agreed milestones. In addition, I am making available a further £30 million to contract out some of the agency's debt recovery. I expect that to result in a substantially increased recovery of the current debt owed to parents with care.
	The CSA will take quicker and firmer action against those who default on payment. Supported by changes to secondary legislation, we will increase the use and effectiveness of deduction from earnings orders. The CSA will also be able to make more progress in clearing up the growing backlog of cases, and we will draw on data held by credit reference agencies to help speed up enforcement. I will consider tougher enforcement measures that require primary legislation, but they will need to be addressed as part of the redesigned child support system. That extra investment will mean that by 2008 we will improve compliance rates, ensure that 200,000 more children benefit from maintenance payments, be on track to help lift an additional 40,000 children out of poverty and see a significant increase in the number of parents receiving the child maintenance premium.
	Given the considerable cost and risks involved, the stabilisation and improvement plan will stop short of converting all the old scheme cases to the new scheme. I know that conversion is of concern to many Members—rightly so—and I have asked Sir David to consider it as part of the redesign of the child support system. We must come to a decision on the right way forward as soon as possible.
	I believe that Members on both sides of the House continue to support the original objectives of the Child Support Agency. The measures that I am announcing today are an important step towards improving the current arrangements and, critically, putting in place the foundations for a system of child support that will have a better chance of meeting those original objectives.
	As we all know, relationships come to an end, but responsibilities do not. I know that every Member of the House will want to make sure that that fundamental truth underpins any new arrangements.
	I commend the statement to the House.

Philip Hammond: I welcome the Secretary of State's decision to publish the internal review of the problems at the CSA—something for which we have been pressing since he received it.
	Obviously, we have not yet had a chance to study the report, which I understand will soon appear on the Department's website, but on the back of it the Secretary of State has concluded that the present structure of the CSA cannot be made to work and this morning he has set out his plans for what amounts to a further review—no matter what he may choose to call it—of the system for assessing and collecting child maintenance payments.
	Although the decision to redesign the system from scratch may be the right one, the truth is that the Government must accept responsibility for the lamentable failure to get to grips with the problem much, much earlier. That is not a criticism of the Secretary of State—he has been in his post for only three months and nobody could criticise the speed with which he has dealt with a report that landed in his in-tray only just before Christmas; but it is a criticism of the Government and the failure of political leadership at the Department for Work and Pensions over a long period, as successive short-lived Secretaries of State played revolving doors, without engaging with the fundamental problems that were self-evident to every Member of the House, because we have to deal with them every week in our constituency surgeries. The problems are evident to many of the parents who have to engage with the system and were evident more than a year ago to the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, which called for action in its report of January 2005.
	The CSA's track record is not a happy one. The new computerised system that the Government introduced in 1999, in which they "invested" £0.5 billion of taxpayers' money, was two years late getting started and has never worked properly. Now the Secretary of State is writing it off.
	While the Government fiddled around with the problem, 330,000 applications for child maintenance piled up, unprocessed due to the IT and management problems in the agency—330,000 single mums going without the financial support they need and to which they are entitled. The Government have failed them.
	Some 920,000 cases have remained on the old assessment system, which has left parents who were promised a rapid transfer to the new system worse off and unfairly treated in comparison with new claimants. The Government have failed those parents. Some £3.3 billion of arrears have been allowed to accumulate, while the agency's enforcement unit last year managed to collect just £8 million at a cost of £12 million. That was less than £1 collected for every £40,000 outstanding. The money is owed to single-parent families, but the agency has made no effective attempt to collect it. The Government have failed those families, too. Complaints have risen by 30 per cent. over a year, and face-to-face contact between agency staff and parents has halved since 1997. Compliance under the new system has dropped to 61 per cent.
	In the face of such a catalogue of evidence, the Secretary of State's predecessor asked the chief executive of the agency to examine not the fundamental design of the system, but the internal workings of the agency. Now that the Secretary of State is dropping that internal report in the wastepaper basket, it looks like the wrong question was asked of the wrong man. That has created an additional nine months' delay to eventual reform—nine months in which chaos and injustice continues.
	Some have suggested that the CSA should simply be handed lock, stock and barrel to Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs. While I and, I am sure, the Secretary of State would not want to rule out a future role for the tax authorities in an alternative system, does he agree that it would be completely inappropriate to suggest that HMRC should take over the present system? Does he agree that such a move would effectively transfer the burden to employers under the pay-as-you-earn system, and that it would compromise the Revenue's core functions, not to mention its ongoing struggle to sort out the problems in the tax credits system?
	Will the Secretary of State confirm that the new enforcement powers that he announced will be used against only seriously non-compliant absent parents? Conservative Members will support greater powers to track down and deal with parents who try to dodge their responsibilities to their children. We welcome the use of private debt collectors, which will be an effective step, but such greater intrusion into people's private lives can be justified only when there is serious non-compliance, so I urge him to ensure that it does not become part of the routine process at the front end when dealing with applications.
	The Secretary of State told the House that the terms of reference for the belated review will be to redesign completely the child support system. Will he confirm that, whether or not much cash is raised in individual cases, he still believes in the principle that every parent should contribute something towards the maintenance of his or her child? That principle, on which the CSA was founded, was—and remains—important, so it should not be lost in the redesign of the system.
	The Australian child support agency is often cited as a model and has many features to commend it, but in Australia, nearly all parents use the agency when families split up. In this country, the majority of families make entirely private arrangements. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government remain of the view that voluntary arrangements are to be preferred when it is possible to make them and that the state should get involved only when it is not?
	Will the Secretary of State discuss with the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether Sir David's remit should include an examination of the impact of decisions about access, which are managed by CAFCASS—the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service—on the operation of the child maintenance system—and, indeed, vice versa? There was a report in some of the media this morning that the public sector unions have been given a promise that the CSA will not be broken up. Will he categorically confirm that no such undertaking has been given? Will he tell the House the lessons that he has drawn from the IT disaster in the CSA, which deals with 1.5 million cases, that he can share with his Cabinet colleagues before they ask the House next week to commit to an IT system that would have to deal with 60 million people?
	The action that the Secretary of State has announced to address the crisis in the child support system is certainly too late. Let us now all work together to ensure that it does not turn out to be too little. We will continue our work on child support and seek, with his agreement, the opportunity to feed that work into Sir David's review.
	There are grounds for optimism. It is possible to run a workable child support system because international experience tells us so. However, for parents who receive CSA payments, this will be a time of uncertainty and anxiety as they face the prospect of further turmoil and change. We owe it to them, as well as the many hundreds of thousands of parents for whom the CSA is not delivering, to ensure that we move forward as rapidly as possible with clarity and, hopefully, consensus on how best to deliver a simple and effective system for the 21st century.

John Hutton: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the work that Sir David Henshaw will initiate to help us to redesign a more cost-efficient and effective child support system. I make it clear to all hon. Members, as I have made it clear to the hon. Gentleman, that their views will be welcomed, and I am sure that Sir David will want to follow that up.
	It is not true that there have been no improvements at all to the operation of the Child Support Agency since 1997. It has improved in several key areas, but I have not come to the House to say that the agency's performance is acceptable—quite the opposite. We have to move beyond that now, so I am not going to quibble about the statistics that the hon. Gentleman cites, which are right. The agency's performance has simply not been good enough. My predecessors worked hard to try to make the CSA work, but it cannot work. Rather than investing more money in it, let us design a sensible new system to replace it. I agree that it would make no sense to transfer the CSA's existing functions to any other Government Department or agency, including HMRC, given the CSA's range of functions, which other Departments clearly would have no expertise—or legal basis—to perform.
	Clearly, the new enforcement powers will need to be focused on non-compliant parents or used if there is a risk that a parent will become non-compliant. I do not believe that the right way to solve the problems would be to construct a mini-dictatorship at the centre of Government—absolutely not. However, we have a responsibility.The hon. Gentleman asked whether I thought that every parent should contribute—yes, absolutely.
	We must be prepared to take some of the decisions that I have suggested that we should take to give the CSA the tools that it needs to do its job. I know that many hon. Members have had the same experience as me when talking to people in the CSA. They often say that they are fighting the war—that is what it feels like to them—of getting absent parents to pay what they should be paying for their children with one arm tied behind their back. We cannot ignore that any longer, so we have to get tough, which is what I propose that we should do with non-compliant parents. I hope that Opposition Members will lend their support to measures to achieve that.
	Of course voluntary arrangements are to be preferred and it would be an immensely good and important step forward if they were in place for more parents. Sadly, as we all know from our constituency work, relationships that break up often do so in turmoil and involve a lot of emotional upset. It is thus not always possible for such agreements to be reached, so I remain convinced that we will continue to need a strong and effective system to ensure that maintenance is paid when relationships break up. We do not have such a system now, so we must address that problem.
	It is true that the CSA needs to focus on its existing responsibilities. The stabilisation plan will allow it to do that and there is no question whatsoever—I hope that this is clear—of us, or anyone else, backing away from giving the CSA in its present form all the support that it needs to ensure that non-compliant parents meet their financial responsibilities to their families.

Frank Field: I thank the Secretary of State for the most honest statement about the CSA that we have heard from the Treasury Bench for many a long year, but I suggest that one aspect of his statement that will cause disquiet on both sides of the House is the question of what we can do for those whose cases are trapped on the old system—the hundreds of thousands of people who are paying nothing and who should be making a modest contribution, and those who are paying substantially more than Parliament said they should be paying from 2003. My guess is that his staff have told him that it is impossible to do much to transfer those cases to the new computer. To test whether that advice is correct, will he and Lord Hunt—the Minister in charge of the CSA—spend a day in the office with staff and see whether, in fact, they can start to transfer those cases to the new system?

John Hutton: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his words. We have a major problem in converting cases from the old scheme to the new one and I shall not pretend that we have solved that problem. Clearly, we have not. The advice that I have received is that we cannot make those transfers easily. That is a significant problem, especially in relation to the payment of the child maintenance premium. A clerical operation in which we went through all 900,000 such cases would be required to make those payments. My right hon. Friend is right to say that that is where we must focus our immediate concern. Sir David Henshaw will have to examine the problem as part of his redesign work, and I hope that we will shortly be able to come to the House to deal with that question.

David Laws: I thank the Secretary of State for advance notice of his statement. He knows that, where we agree with him on policy issues, we are not afraid to say so, but today I wish to express the anger of many of our constituents about the ongoing failures at the CSA and the Government's ongoing inability to put in place a clear set of policies for its reform. The Government have been talking about dealing with the CSA since coming to office in 1997. The Prime Minister said in 1998 that urgent reform was needed, but we still await a clear decision by the Government on what that urgent reform will be—and that is no clearer today, after the statement.
	Does the Secretary of State accept that what we have in this country is the most inefficient child support agency in the world and that, even though CSA staff are doing a difficult job, the standard of performance is not acceptable? Does he also accept that it is shambolic and absurd that after a one-year review, we are to have another review, which will take a further six or nine months to reach a conclusion? What on earth have his Department and his predecessors been doing since the Select Committee reported in January 2005 and called for his Department to put in place an alternative set of policies? Why is he having to brief newspapers today that he is going back to the drawing board, that he has a blank sheet of paper and that, as he said in his statement, all the options for reform are open? Why is that the position when a review has been going on for the past year? Why has that review not reached a conclusion? Is the problem that the Secretary of State believes that the CSA should be transferred to the Inland Revenue but does not have the agreement of other parts of the Government?
	Why, in spite of the recommendations that the Select Committee made a year ago, have the reductions in back office and support staff at the CSA continued for the past year? What is the magnitude of those cuts and have they contributed to the fact that there is now an absurd delay of 470 days in processing outstanding unprocessed new claims? Does the Secretary of State agree that that is wholly unacceptable? When, under his new proposals, will that 470 days be reduced to the 42 days that used to be the Government target? What has happened to the gimmick of tagging about which we heard so much two or three weeks ago, but which was not mentioned today? Has that idea been totally rejected?
	I accept that the Secretary of State inherited a mess from his numerous predecessors, who failed to act in respect of the CSA. I accept also that, in so far as one can establish his direction of travel, he is edging in the right direction today. It is tempting to feel sorry for him, given the position in which he finds himself, but most of us feel much sorrier for the people who have suffered for too long as a consequence of the agency's failures. Today, those people were expecting action and fundamental reform but instead they have got patching and another review. Does he accept that that will not be satisfactory to most people?

John Hutton: I am not asking for the hon. Gentleman's sympathy. I am asking for his support to solve the problems. He can carry on dancing around, as he has today and on previous occasions, hinting at his wisdom, knowledge and superior assessment of the problem, but the fact is that he does not have a sensible policy to offer. There is a golden rule in this House: it is best not to throw those kinds of stones from a position of total intellectual bankruptcy. His policy is not a sensible one. I am happy to help him out of his predicament: he should help us and work with Sir David Henshaw to achieve a resolution.
	I do not want to get party political—[Hon. Members: "Go on."] All right then, I will. It is fashionable to accuse the Liberal Democrats of flip-flop but that accusation is proper in relation to their policy on child support arrangements. The hon. Gentleman has gone from supporting a return to the courts to transferring the CSA to the Inland Revenue, but both policies are risible.
	I have made it clear today that the CSA's performance is not acceptable. Of course that is the Government's responsibility—there is no one but us to stand here and defend the agency's performance and that performance has not been good enough. Now, we have to engage with the fundamental issues and put in place the foundations of a more acceptable solution. However, as I said in response to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) it is simply not true to say that nothing has been done in the past eight years. We now have a much better formula in place and performance in key areas of the CSA has improved, but I shall not trade statistics on inadequate performance with the Opposition spokesmen, because the truth is there for all to see.
	There has been no reduction in CSA staff—the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) is quite wrong. It is clear in the plan that I published today that additional staff will be recruited to ensure that we make progress on the backlog and shift the focus from the back office to enforcement and debt collection to make absent parents who are not paying fulfil their responsibilities to their children.

Dennis Skinner: The CSA was born during those grey Major years—uninspiring and unworkable and within three years, I and a few other Labour Members voted to scrap it. I am the first to acknowledge that when we did so, we—my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and I—did not have a joint answer to the problem, but we knew that the agency might not work. Several attempts have been made to solve the problems, including a recent one, which also failed. Today, I am pleased that an effort is being made to start afresh. If there is to be a fresh, blank, white sheet of paper, that is good. I hope that we are going get away from that uninspiring proposition that came out of those grey Major years and do something that saves the situation for millions of people in Britain.

John Hutton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. As he says, it is time to get serious and design a proper, more cost-efficient system. I suspect that some of the Labour Members and people outside the House who supported the creation of the CSA were concerned about the real motivation of its creators. Was the aim to help families or to save benefit? We can now afford to leave that behind us as we focus on designing a new system and I look forward to my hon. Friend's support during that process.

Alistair Burt: I appreciate more than many the difficulties that face the Secretary of State and Lord Hunt, the Minister responsible for the CSA. There was a collective failure in the House to scrutinise the original proposals and intentions, and since then there has been a collective failure to breathe life into a corpse. No matter how hard agency staff have tried, I agree with the bottom line suggested by the Secretary of State, that perhaps the agency has reached the end of its days and something radical is needed.
	Will the Secretary of State confirm that, although he has given Sir David Henshaw proposals for practical development, he will have some policy input in setting parameters for the review on key policy areas such as maintaining the link between parents and children, and perhaps also in differentiating more effectively between the deliberate non-payers, who have always been a problem under every system, and those who voluntarily want to maintain contact? Will he—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is sufficient.

John Hutton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his candour and honesty. He worked very hard to make the CSA work, but he experienced exactly the same problems that we have experienced. I therefore welcome his comments. I am sure that he will have something to contribute to the work of Sir David Henshaw's team.

Tony Lloyd: I, too, strongly welcome my right hon. Friend's honesty with the House, as it shows that we are determined to achieve proper solutions. There are two groups of people. One group is trapped under the old system, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) referred, and the other group is simply receiving nothing at all. For some of our constituents, there is no justice at the moment so, in the short term, would it be possible to provide rough justice to achieve solutions that are not necessarily elegant or perfectly bureaucratic solutions but which will simply make sure that money goes to the families who deserve it?

John Hutton: I agree. My hon. Friend will have a chance to look at the detailed plan published by the chief executive of the CSA today. In crude but simple terms, over the next two or three years, the CSA will focus on doing exactly what my hon. Friend said. Its priority should be to make sure that more parents receive more maintenance from absent parents more regularly, and the plans that Stephen Geraghty has set out will help it to do so.

Michael Weir: The one big disappointment for many people in the statement is the lack of action on migration, which causes people more heartache than anything else in the system. The Minister said that £90 million will be made available over three years for the stabilisation scheme. Does he think that it will be another three years before the Henshaw review is put into effect, so that it will be six years before the new system is introduced? People will still be on different systems which, as I said, causes much anguish. If the new system is to receive public backing, it must be a fair one that treats everyone the same. On debt recovery, if the right hon. Gentleman is going to use private debt collectors, can he assure us that there will be strict monitoring of their effectiveness and, importantly, the methods that they use to recover payment, as the industry has more than its fair share of shady characters?

John Hutton: Of course there is migration from the old scheme to the new one. Conversion is a different issue. The chief executive has looked at it in depth and made his recommendations to Government, but the cost of making conversion a practical reality will run into hundreds of millions of pounds. We must therefore make the position clear, as it is an important issue for Sir David Henshaw's team to consider so that, as I told my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), it can return quickly with suggestions for more sensible arrangements. As for bailiffs, we must work properly, fairly and reasonably, and I am sure that the CSA will. I have no qualms whatsoever about allowing non-compliant absent parents who do not pay up to hear the knock on the door from the bailiffs saying it is time to pay up. I hope that the hon. Gentleman supports that.

Vera Baird: It is important to acknowledge the professionalism of the CSA staff who, for years, have tried to make the system work, particularly when the IT repeatedly failed. They must have dealt with crowds of anguished and angry parents on the telephone. Their morale is low now and it may not have been elevated by my right hon. Friend's announcement. What reassurance can he give CSA workers about their jobs and what can he do in the relatively short term to try to improve their low morale?

John Hutton: I agree that that should be one of our top priorities. I can only repeat what I have found when I have visited CSA offices. The staff want the system to work and the single biggest reason why morale is low is that it is simply not doing so. They want to find a way to change that. In the short term, the stabilisation plan published by the chief executive, which I support, will result in significant additional investment in the CSA, including additional staff. However, it will be a difficult job to manage, which is why I intend to give my full support to the chief executive for his work to make sure that the CSA delivers the job that Parliament has asked it to do. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will lend him their support too.

Angela Watkinson: The Secretary of State rightly focused on the backlog of unheard cases and those of non-compliant absent parents. Will he give serious consideration to the way in which we could help another group—compliant absent parents, who often pay so much that they do not have money to keep a roof over their own heads? Sometimes, they are paying money to a former partner who is now in favourable financial circumstances and withholding access to the children.

John Hutton: It is always possible for someone in those circumstances to seek a reassessment under existing legislation. I have not announced any changes to that today. The hon. Lady may have dealt with specific cases in her constituency, and she is welcome to bring them to our attention, but our focus and priority must be the children. We must find a sensible way of doing what she, I am sure, wants and what I want. We must balance those responsibilities to make sure that children are not the losers because I am afraid that, far too often, they are.

Wayne David: I thank the Minister both for his statement and for the frankness that he displayed. When the redesign of the agency is carried out, will models used in other European countries be taken into account?

John Hutton: Yes, I think that Sir David should be free to consider all the available options that could contribute to the design of a more cost-effective and cost-efficient system.

Mark Francois: I agree that, given the myriad problems with tax credits, the solution is not to pass the buck to HMRC. I do not think that that would work. Like many hon. Members, I have seen single mothers in tears in my surgery because they are frustrated with the weaknesses of the system. We must do better. My personal view is that the agency is irretrievably broken but, given that the Department has already had months, if not longer, to review the problem and that the Secretary of State's answer is essentially that there will be yet another review, is there anything more positive that he can offer parents who are suffering under the broken system?

John Hutton: The hon. Gentleman will need time to study the detail of the plan that was published today, as it contains a series of measures that will make a significant difference to the performance of the CSA, including for his own constituents. May I make it clear that we have not announced another review today? We have announced a redesign of the current system. We are not reviewing the Child Support Agency. I agree that we need to move on, so we have announced that, in the next four to five months, Sir David Henshaw will redesign the essential parts of the child support system. I hope that we can then take the next steps and make sure that we can legislate to create that new system.

Liz Blackman: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the extra capacity to deliver improved performance in the next few years is available, and is he confident that it can be drafted in speedily so that all our constituents can experience improvements in the interim before the redesign takes place?

John Hutton: I have every confidence that the new chief executive of the CSA and his management team will deliver the stabilisation and improvement plan that I have announced. Clearly, however, it is something in which my colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions and I will take a close interest.

Nadine Dorries: Will the Minister reply to the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) asked about CAFCASS? May I point out, too, a mistake that the Minister may have made in the statement? He said that relationships, as we all know, come to an end. That may be a future Labour policy, but in my experience, more relationships endure than end, so could he correct that statement?

John Hutton: Of course I do not want relationships to come to an end, but they do. The job of the Child Support Agency, often in very difficult circumstances, is to try and sort out the mess. It is our job collectively in the House, and specifically mine as Secretary of State, to make sure that we have in place a proper cost-effective and efficient system for dealing with hard cases. My whole argument today is that we do not have that system in place, after many years of effort. All of us must get on, do the work and put a better system in place.

Rob Marris: I am heartened that one year after the Select Committee produced its report—as a member of the Select Committee, I was pleased to draft some of it—we are moving on and that my right hon. Friend is indeed talking about redesigning the Child Support Agency, because it has failed. That seems to be the conclusion of the new chief executive in his report, when he wanted so much money.
	Can my right hon. Friend reassure me about two things in the interim? First, he spoke today about the huge cost of migration of old cases to the new system. Is EDS, the computer supply company, to be sued for that? Secondly, as an interim measure, will he address the issue that we found when we looked into the CSA—that too many staff were engaged in calculation, leaving none doing enforcement, so that enforcement always took the back seat? Will there be a division now, not after the redesign comes in, to ring-fence some enforcement staff?

John Hutton: Yes, very specifically, in answer to my hon. Friend's last point. The chief executive is looking to redeploy resources significantly inside the CSA, so by the end of the period one in five staff in the CSA will be working in the area of enforcement. That will be a significant change. On my hon. Friend's point about conversion from old scheme to new scheme, it is true that that has been beset by IT problems from the beginning. We have reached a settlement of those disputes with EDS so we are not planning any litigation, but clearly the IT system across the CSA needs to improve very quickly indeed.

Peter Bone: At the start, I welcomed the Secretary of State's statement, but I am getting more and more concerned as I listen to his replies. He said in his statement that Sir David's terms of reference would be drawn widely, yet at the Dispatch Box the right hon. Gentleman has already rejected the idea of going back to the court system and transferring to the Revenue. Is there anything else that he has ruled out?

John Hutton: The hon. Gentleman will have to pay more attention to these proceedings. It was suggested by some on the Opposition Benches and some on the Government Benches that we should transfer all the existing functions to HMRC, and I have said that that makes no sense at all. It is not a serious proposition. The hon. Gentleman will have a chance to study the terms of reference that we published today, and he will find that it makes clear, as I have made clear in my answers, that Sir David Henshaw will able to consider all the options for a more cost-efficient child support system for the future.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must move on to other business. We now come to another statement.

Offender Management

Charles Clarke: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
	I am publishing today a five-year strategy for protecting the public and reducing reoffending. I believe that most people want three main things from the criminal justice system. They want to see justice done, with people who commit crimes getting caught and punished. They want to be protected from dangerous people so that they can walk the streets without fear. They want a system that gets people back on the straight and narrow, so that time spent in the criminal justice system stops reoffending, rather than just acting as a brief interlude in a life of crime.
	More than half of all crime in this country is committed by people who have been through the criminal justice system. Prison does not work in stopping reoffending. The strategy that I am publishing today is designed to meet the challenge of reducing reoffending. I begin with our first duty, which is to protect the public.
	The recent record of prisons is good, with no category A escapes since 1996. The best way to keep the public safe from violent and dangerous people is to keep them in prison for as long as is necessary and to improve the way offenders are supervised in the community. The new indeterminate sentence for public protection will mean that seriously dangerous offenders will not be released until the Parole Board assesses that it is safe to do so, which in some cases could be never.
	We will do more to protect the public from all offenders who are still assessed as being dangerous. Through the multi-agency public protection arrangements, offender managers will be required to work with all agencies, including the police, to supervise dangerous offenders closely and send them back to prison if necessary. We anticipate bringing forward, as soon as parliamentary time allows, mental health legislation that will improve public protection, while respecting individual rights. Our second and third duties are to punish and to rehabilitate offenders.
	The argument that I wish to make today is that prison is only one way of punishing offenders, and that it is best for the most serious offenders, particularly those who are dangerous. However, there are better punishment regimes for others. In particular, properly organised community sentences can be a powerful, effective and tough punishment that offers the best chance of stopping offenders offending again.
	I recognise that community sentences need to win the confidence of sentencers, local communities and, most important, the public. The five-year strategy sets out the essential components for success—first, significant expansion of unpaid work in a variety of different settings, which are highly visible to the public and demonstrate reparation and payback to the community; secondly, full use of the range of rehabilitations, including health, education and other support; and thirdly, genuine aspiration to going straight for every individual, with a contract based on strong future prospects of employment, housing and social and family relations.
	All those can be delivered only through far stronger partnerships with local authorities and other public services, voluntary and community organisations and individual citizens, in the ways set out in the strategy document. Central to that is managing offenders better, whether in custody or in the community. A named offender manager for every offender will be responsible for ensuring that they are both punished and rehabilitated properly. They will work across prison and probation, which is why we have brought together all our work with offenders under a single organisation, the National Offender Management Service.
	We need to develop closer links with communities. Later this spring, we will publish a new strategy for the prisons estate. That will confirm our vision for community prisons, with a modernised prison estate that is focused on reducing reoffending and facilities that can help to bridge the gap between custody and community. To achieve all that, we need to increase support to our staff and bring in the best possible people and organisations to challenge and to support every offender. We need to move to a system that has the flexibility to provide what will best cut reoffending. Many partners from the private and voluntary sector already work in prisons and the community, and the complex problems they face often need better partnerships. Our proposals take this one step further.
	The National Offender Management Service, with commissioning at its heart, will harness the dynamism and talents of a broader range of innovative and effective providers from the public, private, voluntary and community sectors. The primary aim will be to drive up standards and reduce reoffending. We expect many successful bidders to be partnerships from the public, private and voluntary sectors, and we will shortly publish a prospectus to set out a phased programme of contestability.
	We consulted last autumn on a proposal to change probation boards into probation trusts, which would have contracts with the commissioners in the National Offender Management Service. I will introduce legislation to make that change. We will carefully consider the results of the consultation to make sure that we can overcome any risks and practical difficulties, but still get the benefits of commissioning. We will commit to excellent, well trained and well supported staff, with new occupational standards and better support for good leadership. As we move forward, I intend to give more freedom to high-performing prisons and probation trusts.
	We have already made some progress in cutting reoffending, but our progress has been slow and incremental. I have concluded that we need to underpin the measures in our strategy with fundamental structural reform. Taken together, our measures will ensure that we protect the public and also cut reoffending much more significantly, make the public safer, and reduce crime and criminality.

David Davis: I thank the Home Secretary, as is traditional, for advance sight of the statement, although much of it was trailed this morning in the press and by the right hon. Gentleman himself on the radio. It is called a five-year plan, but it has taken the Government eight years to come up with it. There is much in the Home Secretary's statement with which we agree. The prison estate is overcrowded and the reoffending rate is far too high. On that, there is no difference between us. There is a desperate need for better education and training in our prisons.
	About two years ago, the Home Secretary's predecessor came to the House of Commons to announce the forerunner of today's five-year plan, the so-called Carter report. The report contained a number of grand plans, some of which the Home Secretary has reiterated today, but as Lord Ramsbotham, the former chief inspector of prisons, said this morning, little of it actually happened.
	Realising that it would be at least 20,000 prison cells short, the Home Office decided to increase the number of community sentences and early releases and deter judges and magistrates from sending criminals to prison in the first place—incidentally, that policy was a complete reversal of the then Home Secretary's public rhetoric. It cannot be right or fair on the law-abiding public to address the problem of prison overcrowding by releasing dangerous or unsuitable prisoners on tags or by simply not sending such people to prison in the first place. Covering up the failure of planning has also proved to be a false economy. The greatest costs of the prison and probation service are not measured in the accounts, because they are the costs of failure— the Home Office has estimated that the cost to the country of reoffending is at least £11 billion.
	Failure is the norm under this Government. For example, criminals sent on community punishment should be less hardened than those sent to prison, so their reoffending rates should be better. In practice, however, the reoffending rate among those subject to community punishment is at least as bad, if not worse, than that among criminals who have been sent to prison. The Government's flagship programme for punishment in the community is the intensive supervision and surveillance programme, which the Youth Justice Board has described as the
	"most robust and innovative community based programme available".
	It has a failure rate of 91 per cent.
	Under this Government, reoffending levels have risen to an all-time high—more than 60 per cent. of prisoners reoffend within two years, and the same is true of 73 per cent. of young offenders. There are reasons why that is the case. If a prisoner comes out of jail without a skill, unable to read and hooked on drugs, his chances of going straight are near to zero. And what is the current situation? Half of all prisoners cannot read as well as a typical 11-year-old, and four fifths of them cannot write as well as a typical 11-year-old. Half of all prisoners do not have any of the skills required by 96 per cent. of the jobs available to them, so most are virtually unemployable. That is compounded by the fact that large numbers of them are addicted to drugs, often crack cocaine.
	How has that happened? The first problem is chaos in the system. Prisoners do not get the training that they need to get them back on the straight and narrow. Often, those who are lucky enough to start a course never complete it, because they are moved to another prison in the constant reallocations that occur as a direct result of the prison overcrowding allowed by this Government. Drug addiction is getting worse because of the Government's serial failure in that area—for example, drug treatment and testing orders have a failure rate of 80 per cent.
	The Government's failure to stop reoffending rates spiralling out of control is no surprise, but so far under this Government community punishment has not been proven to be a success. On the radio this morning, the Home Secretary said that the Government had
	"not tried it in a coherent and systematic way".
	Will he tell the House why we should expect any different now?
	Some of the Home Secretary's proposals sound sensible enough. Sending 10,000 foreign prisoners home sounds sensible, provided that they are locked up in their home country and never come back here—although the fact that the figure is 10,000 in the first place prompts a question about the current management system. Local prisons are not a bad idea, and using charities and voluntary groups is a good idea, but those are minor changes in the face of a massive problem.
	The public at large are not protected from a criminal who receives a non-custodial sentence. That issue has been thrown into sharp relief by those criminals who have committed crimes while on early release from prison—criminals who were released early have committed at least 7,000 crimes that we know of, including almost 1,000 violent crimes and at least two high-profile murders. All those crimes would not have happened if the criminals involved had been locked up, as they should have been. Would it not have been more sensible to await the findings of the inquiry into the murder of John Victor Monckton rather than making this statement in advance? Do we not need a thorough and wide-ranging look at the whole question of early release, parole and release on licence before the Home Secretary revamps the system yet again?
	I would welcome much of today's announcement if it were the blueprint of a Government fresh into power, but it is not. As for gimmicky initiatives and new powers, we have been there and got the T-shirt—the only difference is that this time the T-shirt has "Community Payback" emblazoned on the back. In the past eight years, we have seen custody plus, custody minus, early release schemes, intensively supervised community service, cognitive therapy for prisoners and so on. The results include rocketing prison populations, high rates of drug addiction and revolving-door prisons with high reoffending rates. It is easy to trot out the figures showing that the current failing system costs the economy billions of pounds. However, hidden in that figure is the cost to local communities that must deal with the effects of criminals who are released on to the streets unreformed, uneducated and still addicted to drugs.
	I should also ask about the cost to the offenders themselves. Most of them are largely uneducated, illiterate and innumerate young men aged between 16 and 25, whose crimes result largely from alcohol and drug abuse. They need not only punishment for their crimes, but some help to go straight and make something useful of their lives on release. Is not the taxpayer, who spends millions on prisons and community sentences, entitled to a real return on his investment in the criminal justice system? All that has come from the Government's multiple strategies thus far has been a lot of wasted money and even more wasted lives.

Charles Clarke: Despite the negative tone adopted by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), I agree with a great deal of what he had to say. The cost of failure is, of course, the key point—by the way, the cost is the result not only of this Government, but of decisions made in past decades and centuries. Every time that we fail to rehabilitate somebody, the cost of failure to society as a whole—let alone to the individual, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly said—is massive.
	The right hon. Gentleman is right to identify the massive issues around the people who are in our criminal justice system. The Government are committed to education and health, and the least educated and least healthy people in the whole population are those within the criminal justice system—as the right hon. Gentleman has said, the issues include illiteracy, innumeracy, drug abuse, alcohol abuse and mental health.
	Why have we not succeeded in conquering that problem? In my opinion, it is because we have been insufficiently systematic and rigorous, insufficiently determined to focus on the individual circumstances of each offender and insufficiently ready to form a partnership among all agencies. The essence of the right hon. Gentleman's criticism is that not enough has been done to deal with those questions, which is a criticism of the record rather than of this five-year strategy. He is entitled to make that criticism, but I am entitled to say that the result of years of neglect of the prison and probation system is that we have a long way to go to resolve the matter.
	I acknowledge the difficulties and say that we must do two things: first, we must focus on individual offenders and implement regimes to get them to go straight; and secondly, we must build a partnership with a more diverse range of providers and other agencies to achieve the changes set out in the strategy. I hope that we will have the support of the right hon. Gentleman's party.

John Denham: The vision is correct, but the challenge is implementation. Will my right hon. Friend rule out the possibility that vital decisions about the supervision and management of dangerous sex offenders could in the future pass into the hands of private companies? A Minister confirmed that that is a possibility in the Home Affairs Committee last autumn. The introduction of commissioning may centralise funds at least at a regional level, but many hon. Members believe that greater flexibility is needed on the front line to ensure that support for individual offenders is tailored to their needs, the challenges that they pose and the communities in which they live.

Charles Clarke: I agree with my right hon. Friend that the challenge is implementation. His Committee has taken a consistent interest in the subject, and I hope that we can work together on implementing the strategy.
	I agree with my right hon. Friend that we must ensure that the people who are most dangerous to society are under our control in prison. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) has identified some of the weaknesses in our regime, and we must resolve those issues in the public sector.
	Finally, I also agree with my right hon. Friend that flexibility on the front line is the key issue. Candidly, I do not believe that the relationship between prisons, probation and other services such as education and health and local employers is as strong as it needs to be in communities in Norwich, Southampton and up and down the country.

Lynne Featherstone: I welcome the thrust of today's announcement and the Home Secretary's courtesy in providing an advance of copy of the statement.
	The Home Secretary is right to say that we are sending too many people to prison, and I welcome the fact that he had the courage to say so. He will know that Liberal Democrat Members have long supported the principle that offenders should be required to pay back their communities for crimes that they have committed. However, the Home Secretary has had time since 1997 to make inroads into this problem, and several important studies have not been acted upon. Can he tell the House whether he intends to implement the recommendations made by the social exclusion unit in 2002, when it called for an increase in the discharge grant and the prioritisation of ex-prisoners on local authority lists? Can he explain why no action was taken on that?
	Will the Home Secretary now implement the recommendations of the Home Office review of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, which has been neglected and ignored since 2002? Does he accept that the disclosure rules have left thousands of ex-offenders in a Catch-22 situation whereby they cannot get work and therefore resort to further crime? Finally, if the Secretary of State is committed to ending the scandal of prison overcrowding, why did he abandon the commitment made by his predecessor to cap the prison population at 80,000?

Charles Clarke: The hon. Lady raises five points. I generally welcome the approach that she has taken.
	On the discharge grant, we are discussing with the Department for Work and Pensions whether we can get a better situation as regards the benefits for people leaving prison. On housing, I agree with the hon. Lady that there are serious issues about housing discontinuities. We are discussing with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and housing organisations how best to deal with that. We are also considering issues to do with the rehabilitation of offenders.
	I do not accept that the disclosure rules are the problem in respect of ex-offenders being unable to get work; in fact, the reverse is true. Many employers are ready to give work to ex-offenders, but we have not succeeded in engaging with them properly to provide the necessary pathways. We will of course work on that.
	On the hon. Lady's final point, for too long our policies in this area have been driven by a discussion about the size of the prison population. In my opinion, prison should be used where it is needed for dangerous prisoners, and we should proceed on that basis. Community sentences should be built up to work in a tough and effective way where they are needed. The process is not helped by picking a relatively arbitrary figure and saying that it is the appropriate size for the prison population.

Stephen McCabe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that public confidence might increase if the public felt that they had a more direct input into recommending or designing the punishment project so that it was more relevant to local communities? Given that it is punishment, should not there be a prompt and visible consequence for non-compliance, no matter what the excuse?

Charles Clarke: I very much agree with my hon. Friend, and I am grateful to him for raising the point in that way. My view is that unpaid work should be a much higher component in community sentencing than is sometimes the case, that a wide range of potential providers of unpaid work can resolve the issues, and that that unpaid work should be highly visible in a particular locality. We have seen in other countries that the visibility of unpaid work is an important component of the community sentence. We have to be far more ambitious, as is set out in the document, in providing better ways of dealing with that.

Michael Howard: Is it not the case that this Government started by talking tough on prison and failing to make the necessary accommodation available, and are now, confronted by the consequences of that failure, shifting the emphasis to community sentencing without making available the resources that might make that work? Would it not be better if the Home Secretary, instead of reannouncing shallow initiatives that enable him to go on to the "Today" programme and pretend that he is taking effective action, simply rolled up his sleeves and got down to the hard graft of making the present system work?

Charles Clarke: I am always grateful for the comments of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, with his experience in these areas, but with respect I think that he is entirely wrong.
	We have to look at the people who are in prison today and consider whether prison is the right place for them. I cite foreign national prisoners—more than 10,000 of them. Is it right that they should be in British prisons rather than in their own countries? I cite remand prisoners. Is it right that they should be in prison rather than being in the courts and moving more quickly through the process? I cite mentally ill prisoners, where there are serious issues about their mental heath care. I cite prisoners on very short sentences caught in the revolving door, where our failure—I acknowledge that word to the right hon. and learned Gentleman—to provide credible and effective community sentences has meant that we cannot do what is needed for those people in the best possible way.
	I am not telling the right hon. and learned Gentleman that everything has been got right—I do not think that. I do think, however, that it is fundamentally wrong simply to say that the current system is basically okay and we should work a bit harder at it. We have to focus on every offender and build genuine and diverse partnerships.

Sally Keeble: On building links with the community, may I bring to my right hon. Friend's notice the outstanding work that is being done by the Bridgewater hostel in my constituency? A key part of its success has been the acceptance of risk in building links between offenders and the community. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that, in looking at other providers, risk is properly recognised and quantified? So far, the private sector has been extremely risk-averse in handling prisoners in the community.

Charles Clarke: My hon. Friend makes a powerful and important point about risk management, which is insufficiently addressed but absolutely central. However, I do not entirely accept her observation that the private sector has been risk-averse. That is why I said that we will publish a prospectus which means that private sector bidders can look at the particular circumstances and decide how to engage.
	As for the voluntary and community sectors, we have not had the right relationship with them to enable them to address the risks in the way that my hon. Friend describes. I do not take the view that one type of provider is good at dealing with risk and another is bad at it, but that risk has to be at the centre of the whole contestability agenda.

Elfyn Llwyd: I think that most people would agree with the bulk of the right hon. Gentleman's statement. As he knows, community penalties are very successful in reducing reoffending. The way to increase their use is to increase the number of fully trained probation officers needed to implement them. It is extremely disappointing that after months of debate, it seems that the National Offender Management Service will have contestability—privatisation—at its core, yet it is already known that many private prisons are failing.

Charles Clarke: With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, he misses the point in an important way. I pay credit to the work done by probation officers and, indeed, by prison officers; they include highly professional and almost universally highly committed individuals. However, we have not been very good at working with other organisations, whether in education, health, housing, local government or whatever. That working together offers us the best possible chance of developing community sentences that are much stronger and more effective than they are at the moment. It is not simply a question of expanding what exists now, but of changing its nature to bring a far wider range of participants into the frame.

Ian Lucas: I should like to draw to my right hon. Friend's attention the excellent work that is being carried out by the Wrexham youth offending service and by the north Wales probation service, whose work I was recently able to see. It is concerned about the proposal for an all-Wales probation service, which it feels may undermine its close links with prisons in north-west England that serve north Wales, which does not currently have its own prisons.

Charles Clarke: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point about the relationship between north Wales and the north-west of England. He is right to say that the police reorganisation proposals, on which he has strong views, must take full account of the implications for probation. I assure him that I shall study carefully the relationship that he raised.

Charles Hendry: The Home Secretary announced a range of initiatives for improving the skills base and tackling the lack of education and attainment of people in prison. Does he accept that that process does not end when they leave the prison gate? Does he envisage a role for the voluntary sector and charities, such as the Centre for Adolescent Rehabilitation—C-FAR—in Devon, which does incredibly good work in rehabilitating offenders and enabling them to go back into society, but faces a continual battle for Government funding because it was not eligible for any pot of money? If he envisages a role for such charities, will he assure us that funding will be available?

Charles Clarke: I certainly envisage a role for voluntary and community organisations and I know of the hon. Gentleman's commitment, which was reflected in the question that he asked the Prime Minister yesterday. Partnership with voluntary organisations is central and his point about what happens after leaving prison or after a sentence has ended is important. However, we must bear in mind the need for quality. It is important that we do not say that an organisation will receive funding, whatever happens. We must ensure the quality of the provision.

Neil Gerrard: I am sure that the majority of people agree with my right hon. Friend's comments about the need for stronger partnerships with a range of providers. However, some of us have serious concerns about contestability. Yesterday, I received a reply to a written parliamentary question in which I asked about responses to the consultation on restructuring probation. It appears that there were 748 responses but nobody could tell me how many were in favour of contestability. I suspect that the answer is a small number. I urge my right hon. Friend to reconsider the matter. It would be much easier to make a success of the positive agenda that he presented if we carried probation staff with us rather than having a fight with them over privatisation.

Charles Clarke: My hon. Friend is right. I give away no secrets by saying that, when the full results of the consultation are published, they will show that, as he suggested, few people supported the original proposals. I also accept that it is critical to move forward in the way that the strategy sets out with the professionals in the service, not against them. However, almost everybody in the service believes that the end-to-end offender management strategy and the partnership approach is right. They are not convinced that our proposals fulfil those two requirements. I am committed to fulfilling them and to trying to tackle my hon. Friend's point.

James Clappison: Does the Home Secretary accept that few dangerous offenders are women and that relatively few women commit violent offences? Yet in recent years, there has been a disproportionate increase in the female prison population. May we therefore have the widest possible range of alternatives, in which the courts and the public can have confidence, to custody for women, including sentences that are especially tailored to women and would be suitable for women with young families?

Charles Clarke: I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. He may have noted an important recent speech by Lady Hale, a former Appeal Court judge, who clearly set out the points that he made. We are considering the matter carefully. There is no doubt that women in prison constitute an important group for whom we could and should look for alternatives to prison in several specific circumstances. We are actively examining that matter and I would be interested in any specific observations that the hon. Gentleman made to work with us on that.

Rob Marris: Unusually for me, I want to build on a point that the shadow Home Secretary raised. He made a thoughtful point about education, which is vital. The statement refers to a modernised prison estate that focuses on reducing reoffending and facilities that can help bridge the gap between custody and community. I urge my right hon. Friend to consider a specific difficulty, whereby young people in the secure estate start to engage in education and are then moved to another institution. It can sometimes take weeks for the records to catch up with them, by which time they are moved again. That happens seriatim, they never receive the education and they leave prison still illiterate and unskilled.

Charles Clarke: My hon. Friend is correct. Although there have been some moves to improve the position, it remains unsatisfactory. I hope that two aspects of the proposals will tackle his concern. First, the move to community prisons will ensure more stability for precisely the reasons that he states and afford a better chance of working with local education institutions. Secondly, the IT systems, especially the national offender management information system—NOMIS—will ensure that the data are handled better. I hope that the strategy will address the central point that my hon. Friend raised.

Desmond Swayne: How widespread is the problem of intimidation of prison officers and their families by drugs gangs to secure a supply of drugs on the inside?

Charles Clarke: The short answer is that I do not believe that such intimidation is widespread. There are examples of organisations trying to get drugs into prison and we are trying to stop that. The Prison Service makes a constant effort to prevent that. However, I do not believe that the specific manifestation that the hon. Gentleman describes is widespread.

John McDonnell: May I follow the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) made? I am convinced that front-line probation and prison staff share the Home Secretary's objectives and that they will welcome his statement about partnership and co-operative working. However, as my right hon. Friend knows, there has been an underlying concern for the past two years that the Government seek large-scale or wholesale privatisation, especially of the probation service, but also of the Prison Service. Will he make it clear that that is not the Government's objective? Will he give us some indication of the scale, range and nature of the private sector involvement that he envisages?

Charles Clarke: I am grateful for and perhaps surprised by the direction of those comments. The central objective, which is shared throughout the whole service, is to reduce reoffending. That is the test for the precise reason that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) identified: by reducing reoffending, we make the greatest savings for society in terms of the overall economic position. The test applies to the public sector, whether the probation service or the Prison Service, voluntary and community organisations that want to work in the field and private sector organisations. That is the appropriate test: not cost cutting and its attendant aspects, but reducing reoffending. To tease out the details of my hon. Friend's important question, we shall shortly publish a prospectus that will go through our approach to different sorts of offender, different parts of the country and so on. By doing that, we will explore how different organisations want to meet the challenge of reoffending among particular groups.

Geoffrey Cox: Although I welcome a broader range of innovative and effective providers from the voluntary and private sectors, does the Home Secretary agree that it is important that any bidders or organisations that want to provide the service should receive transparent, precise and clear indications of the quality and other conditions that they should satisfy? I ask that question for a specific reason. My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) referred to C-FAR, which was originally situated in my constituency but closed in circumstances with which the Home Secretary may be familiar. It is anxious to revive its valuable work for offenders throughout the south-west region. On the Department's advice, it attempted to engage with the regional offenders' manager. However, there was a spectacular failure to provide the precise indication that it needs of what it must do to receive support from the Department. Will the Home Secretary please examine that? Will he ensure that precise and transparent guidance is given? Otherwise, valuable people who do that sort of work will be deeply disillusioned.

Charles Clarke: I entirely agree with the point about precision and transparency and acknowledge that that has not always been provided. That is why I believe that publishing a prospectus, which sets out precisely the matters that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, including quality standards and targets for reducing reoffending, is the right way to proceed. Organisations such as that to which he referred can examine the document and decide whether they have a genuine contribution to make.

Peter Soulsby: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, and the apparent consensus that alternatives to prison play an important role in reducing reoffending for the significant proportion of prisoners with drug problems, mental health problems and learning difficulties. Does my right hon. Friend agree that making tough and effective alternatives a reality will require working with the probation service, using its considerable expertise, and providing it with the resources and training for education and rehabilitation that it will need in order to be effective?

Charles Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend, but again I must make the point that it is a question not only of providing the resources to the probation service, but of building partnerships between the probation service and other providers, including local government, which my hon. Friend knows well.

Bob Spink: Does the Home Secretary accept that a key ingredient in the problem is that we have not done enough to rehabilitate drug offenders? Will he undertake dramatically to increase the number of residential rehabilitation places available, so that we can cut down on the number of people entering the revolving doors of the prison system?

Charles Clarke: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I hope that he will acknowledge that there has been a substantial increase in the amount of places available for drug rehabilitation. Whether the right way to deal with this is through the use of residential places or other forms of support is a matter of constant, principally professional, debate. However, I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that residential provision has a substantial contribution to make.

Martin Linton: I, too, welcome the emphasis on community sentences in my right hon. Friend's statement, and the commitment to an expansion of unpaid work. Does he agree, however, that to win the full-hearted support of probation officers, he will need to ensure that the probation service—especially the London probation service—has the necessary resources and training to supervise that unpaid work? Does he also agree that the key to the success of community sentences—turning them from a soft option to a hard choice—is a well trained and well supported staff, as I am sure the National Association of Probation Officers would agree?

Charles Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend and, as he knows, the London probation service is recruiting at the moment. I say again, however, that while it is right that there should be well trained and well resourced staff, they must work in partnership with other agencies. It is important to realise that not all of this can be done exclusively by the probation service. Despite the recent major improvements in the London probation service, there remain central security issues in the whole approach, and they need to be addressed at the same time as these other issues are considered.

Peter Bone: Will the Home Secretary tell the House how many hours a day, on average, a prisoner spends in education at the moment, and what that figure will be when the reforms come in?

Charles Clarke: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman those precise figures across the Floor today, but I will happily write to him with the information. If the point of his question is to suggest that more time should be spent on education and skills, I agree with him. It is perfectly reasonable to report to Parliament on how much time is spent on those activities.

Philip Hollobone: May I draw to the Home Secretary's attention the concerns of my constituent, Mrs. Anna Westaway, whose son Harry was stabbed in an unprovoked attack in the street while studying at university? Had he been stabbed an inch nearer to his heart, the charge would have been murder. His assailant has been given a poncey community order. Mrs. Westaway and Harry, as well as most of my constituents and I, believe that if someone commits a knife attack in the street, they ought to go to prison.

Charles Clarke: Obviously, I cannot comment on that particular case. I agree, however, that prison sentences are appropriate for people who commit knife crimes. That is why the Violent Crime Reduction Bill, which is now being considered in the other place, will increase the sentence for those who carry knives. I also believe that the knife amnesty that I announced yesterday will be an important means of taking knives away from the population, and it is being backed by a series of enforcement and education programmes. I take knife crime extremely seriously, but I regret that I cannot comment on the case that the hon. Gentleman has raised; I simply do not know the details.Points of Order

Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On Monday this week, the Regulatory Reform Committee produced a report that described part 1 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill as being of constitutional significance. On Tuesday, the Procedure Committee took evidence from the Under-Secretary of State for the Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr. Murphy). The Chairman of the Committee subsequently wrote to the Leader of the House requesting that part 1 of the Bill be dealt with on the Floor of the House because of its constitutional significance. Today at business questions, the Leader of the House said that he was considering such a request from my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight). In these circumstances, would it be in order either for the Minister to withdraw the programme motion, or to table an alternative motion that reflects the deep concern of two of our most important Select Committees?

David Heath: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) is absolutely right. Indeed, the Regulatory Reform Committee states in its summary that the legislation is
	"the most constitutionally significant Bill that has been brought before Parliament for some years".
	There are clear precedents for constitutional matters being taken before a Committee of the whole House, but the present committal order, exceptionally, does not allow that to happen with this Bill. If it is not possible for the Government to withdraw the programme motion today, may we at least have an opportunity to debate the matter?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand what both the hon. Gentlemen have said. These are obviously serious and important matters. However, the questions raised are for the Minister to respond to. No doubt he will have heard what has been said, and he will respond as he thinks appropriate. For the time being, we can proceed only with the business on the Order Paper.

Nigel Dodds: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Have you had a request from the relevant Minister to come to the House to make a statement on the post office strike in Belfast, which is causing major disruption and even paralysis to postal deliveries and collections in the city and across Northern Ireland? This is causing real hardship for local businesses, and for people who depend on the postal service for their benefit cheques. What are the Government doing to try to help in this situation? I would be grateful to hear whether you have had any information on whether the Government are going to inform the House of their plan of action to bring this serious situation to an end.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The matter that the hon. Gentleman raises is clearly serious, but again it is a matter for the Minister responsible for these issues. I have had no notice, so far, that a statement is planned.

Bob Spink: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask for your guidance on what remedies exist when it is felt that a Minister might have given an incorrect answer to a parliamentary question? I believe that that is the case in respect of my question to the Department for Transport, which was answered on 30 January and affects all south Essex MPs. I was told:
	"There are no committees considering transport infrastructure for the proposed London Gateway port."—[Official Report, 30 January 2006; Vol. 442, c. 68W.]
	Yet I discovered yesterday that the Thames Gateway South Essex Transportation Board is a committee that exists for those purposes and that Government and Go East members sit on that committee. We need transparency and open government on these important matters.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. I can only suggest that he repeat his question to the Minister, and I hope that he will get a more satisfactory answer this time.

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Jim Murphy: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	In opening this debate, I would like to set out the context for the Bill. That context is the importance of the Government's better regulation agenda in maintaining our economic prosperity and continuing to improve our public services. I should then like to make the case for this alternative legislative process to deliver our better regulation objectives, before setting out the Bill's provisions in more detail.
	I should like to start by thanking all those who have helped with the development of these proposals, including the business community and members of our public services. I am particularly grateful to the Regulatory Reform Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in another place. They have made a significant contribution to the Bill's development, having provided very useful insight into the operation of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 and how its defects might be addressed.
	I also welcome the Regulatory Reform Committee's recently published first special report of Session 2005–06, which expresses general support for, and shows a constructive approach to, the issues raised by the Bill. We have not been able to respond to those conclusions given the short time scale, but I wish to say at this early stage of our proceedings that the recommendations deserve serious consideration as they are sensible and constructive, and we expect to draw extensively on the experience of the Committee and its members during the Bill's passage.
	The Government have outlined a radical approach to better regulation and the Bill is central to delivering it. The Bill will provide a more proportionate way of delivering better regulation reforms to legislation. It will help to promote a real change in the culture of regulation and inspection and enable the implementation of valuable and non-contentious Law Commission proposals.
	The introduction of the Bill is a reflection of our continuing commitment to maintain one of the best regulatory performances of any major economy.

John Redwood: As the Minister knows, I am a strong supporter of the idea of deregulation. Which measures would he want to simplify, amend or remove under the wide-ranging powers that he is seeking to give himself? Why does he not simply bring those forward as substantive proposals in their own right?

Jim Murphy: As always, it is a delight to give way to the right hon. Gentleman. I am just disappointed that I no longer face him at Cabinet Office questions every month, as he is performing another important role as one of the 90 Opposition Front-Bench spokespeople. It is interesting that the repositioning of the Liberal Conservative party seems to be about giving everyone a position in the party. I will, as I make some progress, come to the specific question that he has asked. Of course, out of courtesy, I will give way again at that point should he still be in his place.

David Howarth: I think I just heard the Minister say that the purpose of the Bill is to bring forward non-contentious Law Commission matters. Does he recognise, therefore, that some Law Commission matters will be contentious? I remember being consulted as a legal academic on whether burglars should be allowed to sue householders, whether people in fights should be allowed to sue one another, and other such questions. Those strike me as more than technical questions. They are substantive political questions.

Jim Murphy: I welcome the one Liberal—an actual Liberal, rather than a Liberal Conservative—Back Bencher who has come along today for what is supposedly a constitutional, ground-breaking debate. The proposals before us will not allow the introduction of contentious Law Commission proposals. I will make some remarks about that later in my speech and as the debate progresses, but there is a number of non-contentious Law Commission proposals. On average, they have waited about seven and a half years to be implemented. It cannot be right to allow them to gather dust on shelves. Therefore, the legislation will enable such proposals to make progress through Parliament.
	As I was saying, in the March 2005 Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer set out a radical programme of regulatory reform that included the Government's acceptance in full of the recommendations in Philip Hampton's report, "Reducing administrative burdens: effective inspection and enforcement" and in the Better Regulation Task Force's report, "Less is More: Reducing Burdens, Improving Outcomes". A key recommendation was to address the shortcomings of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001.
	The UK is currently one of the best places in the world to do business. Independent surveys have shown that the UK economy is subject to one of the lowest levels of administrative burden of any major industrialised country. The World Bank survey published in September 2005 rated the UK as having the most straightforward employment law in the EU. The survey also ranked the UK second in the EU and ninth in the world for the best business conditions. However, there is no room to be complacent about our economic position. The global economy presents us with huge challenges, not least from the emerging major economies of India and China. We cannot risk our competitiveness by hindering British business with over-burdensome regulation and inspection. If we deliver on our better regulation objectives, the benefits will be considerable. The Better Regulation Task Force estimated that we could boost British national income in the long term by as much as 1 per cent. per year.
	The better regulation agenda is about not just preserving our economic prosperity, but minimising the burden on the public and voluntary sectors. Unnecessary bureaucracy and burdensome inspection can hold back our public servants and voluntary workers, and divert them from their primary purpose: to continue to focus on the needs of the citizen. Better targeted regulation can and should improve the lives of our citizens as well as make life easier for UK business.

Oliver Heald: The hon. Gentleman will know that the British Chambers of Commerce produces its burdens on business barometer each year. The most recent one is for 2005 and it shows that things are getting a lot worse: a £40 billion extra burden has been imposed on business since the Government came in. When is the improvement that he was talking about going to start?

Jim Murphy: The British Chambers of Commerce, the Institute of Directors and all sorts of other important national organisations that represent business strongly support the Bill. I know that the hon. Gentleman has heard this point before but hopefully he will never get sick of hearing it: the Labour Government make no apology for introducing important, progressive regulations such as the national minimum wage, opposed by the Conservative party, and the climate change levy, opposed still, I think, by the Conservative party—

John Redwood: indicated assent.

Jim Murphy: The right hon. Gentleman nods. I am not sure what was announced this morning or last evening by his new leader but, at the moment, we assume that the Conservative party still opposes the climate change levy. It opposes all sorts of family-friendly and supportive policies to enable parents to have the opportunity to work if they so wish. We make no apology for introducing those important pieces of legislation and regulation. I welcome, as part of the repositioning of the Conservative party, any attempt by it to achieve consensus on those issues.

Rob Marris: My hon. Friend has been going down the track of better regulation, no burdens on business and so on. May I invite him to take a step back? I may be misreading the import of the Bill, but clause 1(1) gives a Minister power, by order, albeit on the negative resolution, to reform legislation, or to implement recommendations of one of the Law Commissions in the UK. There is also the power in the Bill for a Minister, by order, also on the negative resolution, I believe, to change the common law of this country. That seems, if I am reading the Bill correctly, far more sweeping than powers to deal with the number of weeks' notice one has to give under some statutory instrument. Can he step back and deal with that broader constitutional picture?

Jim Murphy: I thank my hon. Friend, who as usual makes an important point. I will address the specific matter that he has asked about later in my contribution.
	As I mentioned, the better regulation agenda is about not just preserving our economic prosperity, but minimising the burden on the public and voluntary sectors. I want, however, to be clear that that is not simply a deregulatory agenda. As I said, the Government make no apology for introducing well designed regulation where it can help to enhance opportunity, improve standards in public services, reduce poverty, promote competition and protect our environment.

David Gauke: Will the Minister give way?

Jim Murphy: I will make some progress first. Of course, I will give way as a matter of courtesy to the hon. Gentlemen on the Conservative Benches—and they are all gentlemen—if they so wish.
	Applying better regulation principles to new regulatory proposals is crucial, but the Government must also address the stock of existing regulation if we are to ease the regulatory burden. If regulation is unnecessary, over-complicated, difficult to comply with or poorly targeted, we must do something about it. Two key aspects of the Government's better regulation programme are aimed at tackling the existing stock of regulation: the project to reduce administrative burdens and forthcoming departmental simplification plans.
	The administrative burdens project will reduce the cost and burden to business of administering regulation by focusing regulatory resources on areas of greatest risk. Reducing the burden of complying with regulation for the vast majority of compliant business should result in one third fewer inspections and 25 per cent. less form-filling. The UK will be one of the first countries in the world to measure the total administrative burden on business and set ambitious targets for their reduction. In addition, all Departments will have published simplification plans by the time of this year's pre-Budget report. As well as containing proposals to meet targets for the reduction in admin burdens, those plans will include wider simplification measures to deregulate, consolidate and rationalise regulation. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Health and Safety Executive have been first to produce their simplification plans, which are now available for consultation.

Mark Harper: The Minister mentioned DEFRA. In relation to the comments of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) about laws that could conceivably be amended or revoked by a Minister, my constituents have raised concerns about the statutes that affect the Forest of Dean, including the Dean Forest (Mines) Act 1838 and a number of common law powers. They are worried that were the Bill passed in its current form, it would give Ministers sweeping powers to make substantial changes to the law governing my constituency. Will he refer to that in his wind-up? I will write to him on the matter at a later date.

Jim Murphy: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, and I know that he has tabled a written question on the matter. If I am not being too unkind to him, I would welcome the opportunity to discuss the matter with him, but the most appropriate means of doing so might be for him to volunteer for the Standing Committee. That would be a real commitment to his constituents at the level of interest that he continues to show on the matters that he has raised.
	From the initiatives, a wide range of proposals will emerge for the removal, simplification or consolidation of existing regulations.

David Evennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jim Murphy: Let me make some progress first.
	The central issue is to find the most appropriate and effective means of implementing the proposals. The current arrangements are not fit for purpose. Without the Bill, many of the proposals on which Departments are working will remain just that—proposals. Time on the Floor of the House is rightly precious, and should be reserved for the big issues of the day. Legislative changes to bring about better regulation outcomes, however, are often minor and technical in nature. Not surprisingly, Departments, which must compete for limited space in the legislative programme, find it difficult to justify Bills for such measures. When better regulation reforms are forced to compete for precious parliamentary time, this and future Governments will struggle, just as previous Governments have, to ease the burden on business and our public services.
	For that reason, there was widespread support for the Regulatory Reform Act 2001. Its principles and aims were right—scarce parliamentary Bill time should not prevent Departments from bringing forward regulatory reform proposals and should not deny Parliament the opportunities to play its proper role in regulatory reform. There is also widespread agreement, however, that the way in which the Act was framed has proved inadequate for purpose.
	I acknowledge that the proposed regulatory reform power in this Bill will make important changes to the way in which we pass some legislation. It is important to remember, however, that Parliament accepted the need for an alternative legislative route when it passed the 2001 Act. The order-making power in this Bill simply aims to put right the inadequacies of the 2001 Act. The Bill will not undermine the legislative rights of the House or its role in scrutinising Government proposals; on the contrary, the Government would like to see the House playing a much fuller role in pursuing the better regulation agenda and scrutinising more Government proposals to improve our regulatory landscape.

Jim Sheridan: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we should not undermine good legislation passed by the House. Does he agree, however, that legislation should be driven not only by finance but by the implications for the people we are deemed to protect under it?

Jim Murphy: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In his four or five years in the House, he has made a significant impact on the way in which important and vulnerable workers are protected. He is right that we must not only weigh up the financial cost but the benefits, real or perceived, when identifying new regulations or seeking to remove regulations. I know that he has paid close attention to such matters, and I know from our conversations over the past few days that he continues to do so. I believe that the Regulatory Reform Committee and its equivalent in another place provide the most effective forum in which to do that. I am determined that the proper role of Parliament should be preserved, and I have insisted that the formal preconditions on orders are retained or adapted to remove the narrow and technical concept of burdens. Indeed, those safeguards now apply comprehensively to capture all of the impacts imposed by orders. There is also a new safeguard—no order will be made where there is a better alternative to legislation.
	I want to examine in more detail the inadequacies of the 2001 Act and how the new Bill will remedy those. It was always our intention to review the groundbreaking powers in the 2001 Act and to assess how well they work. Both Houses asked for that undertaking during the passage of the Act. The review, conducted with Departments and drawing on parliamentary Committee reports, was published in July last year, and highlighted some positive aspects to the RRO powers, pointing out that some worthwhile regulatory reforms had been delivered.
	However, the review also identified some serious flaws in the existing RRO power. First, the concept of legal burdens, on which the regulatory reform power is based, is narrow and technically complicated. Departments have found it difficult to make many of their proposals fit those narrow requirements, no matter how beneficial the proposals would be from a better regulation perspective. For instance, the current power can remove a statutory requirement, but it cannot make a statutory requirement easier to comply with. The current power must also be related to an activity, which meant that proposals to improve personal insolvency administration orders could not be taken forward.
	Secondly, technical restrictions such as the two-year rule, which prevents a regulation from being reformed until it has been in effect for two years, have blocked useful reform. The need for reform of a regulation often becomes apparent a lot sooner, and it makes no sense to hold back reform in that way.
	Thirdly, the technical nature of the Act has meant that the work involved in preparing orders is not proportionate to the effect of the orders; nor is that analysis focused on the merits of the proposal as it should be. That has been both a deterrent to using the powers and a significant factor in the length of time that Departments have taken to prepare and present proposals to Parliament. It can often take longer to pass an RRO than a whole Bill. Clearly, that is disproportionate for proposals that are often minor and uncontroversial. For example, the RRO reforming business tenancies, a relatively straightforward reform, took more than two and a half years to complete.
	The review left the Government in no doubt that the RRO power needed to be reformed. It led to proposals that were put out to consultation last year. That consultation drew a wide range of responses from the business community and representative groups, and demonstrated strong support for our proposals.

Christopher Chope: Can the Minister explain why the necessary safeguard in the 2001 Act which ensures that a reform proposal that would only benefit a Minister or Department cannot be put forward under the procedure, has been removed from the Bill?

Jim Murphy: The narrow definition did not allow us to implement specific regulatory reform orders, because of the narrow way in which a legal burden was defined and the way in which a proposal or regulatory reform order, if it only affected a Department, could not be progressed with. There have been specific examples, which I will bring to the hon. Gentleman's attention in writing if he wishes, in which the Government wished to make common-sense, non-contentious simplification proposals, but because of the tight legal definition in the 2001 Act, we were not able to make the type of progress that we would all have wished to see.

John Redwood: The Minister kindly said that he would give way again in pursuit of my original question, and I think that this is the right moment. Can he tell the House how much cost has been removed under the existing legislation, and how much extra he thinks will be possible if he is granted the new powers, with one or two examples so that we can understand why he wants those powers?

Jim Murphy: In total, I think that 27 RROs were delivered under the 2001 Act. At the time of the Second and Third Reading of the 2001 Act, it was anticipated across the House that there would be many more substantial reforms as a consequence of it. The right hon. Gentleman asks a reasonable question, and there is a reasonable answer. More than 200,000 businesses across the UK have been contacted in the admin burdens project on which the Government are working. They have identified a stock of administrative burdens, which the Bill will be able to reduce and simplify. The last Government and, indeed, the present Government would probably not have been able to find time to legislate in that way before, and businesses and others welcome the new measures.
	Many of the non-contentious aspects of the simplification proposals—plans for their implementation must be produced by every Department before this year's pre-Budget report—will find a path through Parliament as a consequence of the Bill. An avenue may also be found for the mergers envisaged in the Hampton report and the penalties review that Professor Macrory is undertaking on the Government's behalf. I believe that 29 of the Law Commission's proposals have not yet been implemented, and that the Government consider about 16 of them to be non-contentious, at least in part.
	I hope that I have given a full answer to the entirely fair question asked by the right hon. Gentleman.
	As I have said, the Bill removes technical limitations such as the legal burdens concept, and makes the RRO power simpler to use. That power is expected to deliver a better regulation outcome than the removal or imposition of a legal burden. The order-making power will also be able to confer legislative functions, or sub-delegation. It can confer a new power on a Minister to lay statutory instruments subject to the negative or affirmative resolution procedure. That is an important restriction, which will ensure proper parliamentary scrutiny of the exercise of that function by Ministers. In addition, a Minister proposing to make an order conferring legislative functions on a Minister will have to lay an explanatory document before Parliament giving reasons for the power to legislate and the procedural safeguards attached to it. Where possible, Ministers will be expected to lay regulations in draft to illustrate exactly how such functions will be used.
	While the proposed new power is much more straightforward and more able to deliver better regulation outcomes, the preconditions in the Bill are stronger than those in the 2001 Act. They have a wider application, applying to all types of provision made by order, not just to those affecting burdens. A Minister wishing to make an order under the new power must ensure that those stringent safeguards are observed.
	The Bill specifies five conditions. A Minister must be satisfied that they have been met before embarking on the order-making process. I think that this deals with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris). There must be no non-legislative alternatives to the order; the effect of the proposal must be proportionate to its policy objectives; the proposal must strike a fair balance between the public interest in its implementation and the interests of any individuals who would be adversely affected by it; the order must not remove any necessary protections; and the order must not prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom which that person might reasonably expect to continue to exercise.
	An additional condition applies when an order is intended to restate legislation or codify the common law. A Minister must be satisfied that the order will make the law more accessible or more easily understood.

David Howarth: Is there not a problem here? All the alleged restrictions are worded so subjectively that none of them, even the ones containing words such as "reasonable", will turn out to be justiciable. Will the Minister consider changing them so that individuals will at least have the right to go to court if the powers are abused?

Jim Murphy: The Government will be happy to be reasonable and listen to sensible suggestions during the Bill's passage, but the conditions are not "alleged"; they are in the Bill. The Bill contains more preconditions than the 2001 Act. I believe that only two out of five conditions apply fully in the Act. All six conditions in the Bill apply fully to all aspects of the order.
	I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is still with us and trust that he will be present for the end of the debate. I know of his interest in the issue. If he has any specific suggestions, I shall be happy to enter into dialogue or correspondence with him, and I look forward to seeing him, along with the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper), on the Standing Committee.
	There are additional restrictions on the order-making power, which are essential to ensuring that it is used appropriately. An order cannot create or increase criminal penalties beyond a specified limit; it cannot create new powers for forcible entry, search or seizure; it cannot compel the giving of evidence; and it cannot impose or increase taxation. Once a Minister is satisfied that the Bill's conditions have been met, he or she will have to submit the order proposals to an exacting process of scrutiny. An effective statutory consultation on the proposals must then be carried out according to the criteria in the Bill before the order-making process can begin.

Tony Wright: The Minister is now dealing with a crucial point. Whatever Ministers say about the conditions, at some point Members will have to decide—or will want to decide—whether what is being proposed should be dealt with by primary legislation or by order. What mechanism will allow the House to determine whether that distinction is being observed?

Jim Murphy: My hon. Friend is right, as he often is. I know how closely he follows the procedures of parliamentary protocol.
	Not only will there be that statutory consultation; the House, or the relevant Select Committees empowered by the House, must be certain that every suggestion can appropriately be dealt with by the order-making power. The Regulatory Reform Committee, to which I gave evidence towards the end of last year, produced an excellent report this week. It contains 17 recommendations. As I said, we are prepared to listen in a reasonable way to those important recommendations and I gave a commitment to the Procedure Committee when I appeared before it earlier this week that we would respond to them before the Bill's Committee stage.

David Gauke: As a member of the Procedure Committee, I discussed the recommendations with the Minister earlier in the week. One of them would give the relevant Committee the right to veto the procedure employed, as opposed to the ability conferred by the Bill to change the procedure to super-affirmative, affirmative or negative. What does the Minister think after seeing the report that was published on Monday? Is he minded to amend the Bill?

Jim Murphy: I know that it is voguish to change policies and positions in a couple of hours, but I am not tempted to follow the fashion. I have nothing to add to what I thought was a good exchange of views at the Procedure Committee hearing, but we will stick to the commitment that I gave to respond specifically to the Regulatory Reform Committee's 17 recommendations.

Tony Wright: Following on from the previous intervention, will the Minister confirm that the Bill as drafted does not contain the provision that we are discussing, and that he is mindful that it should acquire one?

Jim Murphy: My hon. Friend is right to say that, on the face of it, the Bill does not contain the right of veto, but of course, nor did the 2001 Act, as he knows. Such a veto is one of the Regulatory Reform Committee's 17 recommendations and we are looking at it very closely indeed. As I have said to him in conversation, and to the Procedure Committee and the Regulatory Reform Committee, we are open to a process of consultation and discussion, and to seeing where we can offer further reassurances.

Oliver Heald: Does the Minister remember that, when he gave evidence before the Procedure Committee—I was there—he said that there was a veto, and that he would examine the Bill to see exactly where it was located. Of course, this is a complex issue, in that there is an interaction between the Bill, current legislation and the Standing Orders of the House. But as he knows, under Standing Order No. 18(2) it is possible to go ahead with such an order, even though the Committee in question takes the view that doing so is inappropriate. Will he examine this issue? Many of us feel that there should be a right of veto, and he obviously originally thought that there was one.

Jim Murphy: In effect, there is an operational right of veto under the terms of the 2001 Act, and ministerial assurances have been given in respect of not overriding the Commons Regulatory Reform Committee or the Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The Government have not sought at any point in the past five years to overrule any specific suggestions made by either Committee, so there is an operational veto, built on ministerial assurances given when the 2001 Act was implemented, and those assurances have been retained and adhered to. As I pointed out to various Members, we are seeking ways of offering further assurances as part of this process.

Rob Marris: Perhaps I have misunderstood the protections offered by the Bill, but I ask my hon. Friend to clarify the following point. Clause 3(2) lists the five protections to which he referred and clause 6 deals with criminal penalties. If we put the two together, it appears that a Minister could decide to increase the penalty for using a hand-held mobile phone while driving, for example, to 18 months' imprisonment. Such an increase would appear to be consistent with all five protections, and it meets the test under clause 6 because the period in question is less than two years. Many Members would regard increasing the current penalty for using a hand-held mobile phone while driving from three points on one's driving licence to 18 months' imprisonment as rather more than a regulatory reform, but, unless I have misunderstood the Bill, it gives a Minister the power to do that, albeit subject to the negative resolution procedure. Could that be done?

Jim Murphy: I should at this point remind the House that, within the past five years, the Government acknowledged and accepted the recommendation of the Commons Regulatory Reform Committee and the Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee concerning a veto on the registration of births and deaths RRO. Given that I have given way so many times, I shall ditch the rest of my formal speech. Doing so may prove helpful, and it constitutes simplification of a different type.
	I point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West that, in addition to the six conditions included in the Bill, it is envisaged that a Minister would have to undertake statutory public consultation during a 12-week period. That will help to identify stakeholder and public opinion on any of the relevant issues raised. The Minister would have to table an explanatory memorandum, and the Government would have to respond to the consultation. A recommendation would then be made to the Committees that are charged by this House with analysing the specifics of such an order, and they would make their own recommendations. Those Committees have great experience of taking such decisions and of making recommendations on a case-by-case basis.
	There are a number of procedural safeguards: statutory public consultation and ministerial assessment of it, the laying of the draft order and the assessment of the Select Committees themselves. Moreover, the Government have given a commitment not to override the protections guaranteed by those Committees. Such a veto exists, therefore, and the Government have also said that they will not introduce anything highly controversial, so there are various safeguards at each and every stage.
	On my hon. Friend's specific example, the Commons Regulatory Reform Committee and the Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee would make an assessment based on public consultation, and on their own instincts and attitudes toward whether such a change would be highly controversial and ought not to be made. The relevant Select Committee would then operate a power of veto and the Government would be told to think again and seek an alternative legislative vehicle, if they were still minded to proceed with the suggestion.

Rob Marris: That is much better than the formal speech.

David Heath: I have to agree with the remark made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) from a sedentary position. The fact remains that the Bill will empower a Minister to increase the penalty for a criminal offence without the benefit of primary legislation. Are there any circumstances in which the Minister believes that that falls within the broad definition of regulatory reform, rather than within the proper duty of this House to scrutinise primary legislation?

Jim Murphy: On criminal penalties, the Bill gives a commitment not to go beyond a fine exceeding level 5. In addition, the Regulatory Reform Committee will assess such issues. Frankly, the Government have a genuinely more ambitious better regulation agenda than we have ever seen before—an agenda that includes simplification proposals, administrative burden proposals and, of course, the introduction of this Bill. We are absolutely determined to ensure that we maintain our economic competitiveness and that we support our businesses and public services through better regulation, so, yes, we are seeking to go in a much more ambitious direction, but important safeguards will be put in place that are much stronger than the 2001 Act.
	I shall now return to an element of my text before I sit down. I apologise to the House for that. I may wander off it again if the House wishes. I am giving a clear undertaking today that orders will not be used to implement highly controversial reforms, that they will not be forced through in the face of opposition from the Committees of this House and that the Committees' views on what is appropriate for delivery by order will be final. Under the super-affirmative procedure, which, as I have said, Parliament has a right to require, these Committees will be able to recommend amendments to orders, and the Minister will be able to lay a revised draft order reflecting those recommendations. The safeguards contained in the 2001 Act have been maintained or enhanced. Key procedural safeguards have been retained and I have given clear undertakings on the appropriate use of these powers.
	The Regulatory Reform Committee and its equivalent in another place will be central to the policing of the preconditions and safeguards on the face of the Bill and to the scrutiny of proposals in general. Committees in both Houses will have the right to recommend amendments to draft orders or to veto them completely. Parliament's role remains paramount, but the tool will be flexible enough to deliver the will of all sides of the House to ease the burdens on businesses and our public services, where appropriate.
	I turn now to some other specific aspects of the Bill. The 2001 Act was also intended to provide a means for the implementation of Law Commission recommendations. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that the Law Commission has a long history of valuable work in updating, modernising and codifying many areas of our law. Its work is well respected and its recommendations are often non-contentious and attract widespread support. However, as with regulatory reform proposals, the lack of parliamentary time on the Floor of both Houses means that its recommendations are rarely implemented. It makes no sense to leave them languishing when we could be effecting real and helpful change to our laws.
	The 2001 Act did not help enough with the problem, as the technical restrictions of the RRO power made it difficult to implement Law Commission recommendations. The new order-making power in the Bill will address the problem and make it much easier to implement such recommendations, such as the 2001 recommendation on the rights of third parties against insurers. This desirable reform will make it easier for people who are physically injured or economically damaged to recover money from insurers where the perpetrator is insolvent. This sensible reform would not be possible under the current RRO power.
	Some of the restrictions in the new order-making power will not apply to the implementation of Law Commission recommendations, but the same preconditions and rigorous scrutiny process will apply.
	I turn to the issue of Europe, albeit with some apprehension. [Interruption.] Opposition Members are not as excited as they usually are by the use of the word, so I hope that I can make some progress.
	The Bill also contains provisions to reduce the burden imposed by, and increase the transparency of, EU regulations incorporated into domestic law. These technical provisions are intended to improve the transposition of Community law into domestic legislation.

John Redwood: Quite right.

Jim Murphy: I am a little worried to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that. Perhaps I should go off script again and disagree with what is written here. Nevertheless, I welcome his sedentary endorsement for what I have said and am about to say.
	The provisions will make it easier for Departments to transpose regulations and update EU regulatory regimes, as well as making it easier for organisations and individuals to understand the changes that they effect and how they relate to previously implemented EU regulations.

David Taylor: The Government have said that the CBI is broadly in favour of the Bill, but what has been the reaction of small business? I had a good number of small business clients before I entered the House in 1997. The Federation of Small Businesses says that what amounts to a "rule of five" exists—that small businesses face administrative burdens five times as great, proportionately, as those faced by larger businesses, that 5 per cent. of their budgets are spent on compliance and, most importantly, that every five weeks in the past five years one new requirement affecting small businesses has reached the statute book. Is the Minister confident that the Bill will deliver a means to reduce the regulatory burden in an effective way?

Jim Murphy: In an unusually helpful contribution, my hon. Friend identifies an important issue. We are, of course, in close consultation with the FSB and other business organisations. Indeed, the FSB's policy chairman has written to the press strongly endorsing the approach taken by the Bill.
	Although it is relatively straightforward to introduce a Bill, the important thing is what that Bill does. The Government have an ambitious agenda for better regulation, as I emphasised in my meetings with small business people when I travelled around the country last year as part of the wider consultation. They made it clear that one of the biggest problems faced by single-person businesses was the difficulty involved in moving to employing one or two additional people. We are looking for ways to simplify that.
	I have taken a number of interventions, and time is against us, so I shall bring my remarks on Europe to a close. I particularly look forward to support for these measures from those who consistently ask for an easing of the burdens of EU legislation and for the introduction of practical measures to do something about that problem.
	The Bill abides by the regulatory principles of transparency, accountability, proportionality and consistency. Regulatory activity must be targeted only at cases where action is needed. The Bill also enables those principles to be developed further by conferring a power to issue and revise a code of practice in relation to the exercise of regulatory functions. The Bill makes important changes to the way in which we pass some of our legislation. When the House passed the 2001 Act, it agreed that an alternative means of passing legislation to improve the UK's regulatory performance was essential. What this Bill provides is a more proportionate way of delivering those improvements without undermining the role of Parliament. On the contrary, it is clear that it will enhance the role played by Parliament on better regulation issues. I hope that my comments have offered the House a useful starting point for debate and emphasise that we are determined to deliver on our ambitious better regulation programme. The current Act does not deliver on those objectives and the Bill will make a major contribution to maintaining our competitiveness, safeguarding our economic prosperity, reducing the burdens on our public services and improving the lives of our citizens. I commend the Bill to the House.

Oliver Heald: The central point that the Minister makes is that the House will still have the opportunity to debate in the traditional way any measures of importance or controversy. This Bill is an early test of that because the Regulatory Reform Committee has said that the first part of the Bill is of constitutional significance. The Chairman of the Procedure Committee has written to the Leader of the House asking that part 1 of the Bill be considered on the Floor of the House, which is the normal arrangement for issues of constitutional significance. The Leader of the House said earlier that he was considering the issue, and I hope that the Minister will consider withdrawing the programme motion—we may take his willingness to do so as a test of what he says. It should be the principle that any issue of constitutional importance is dealt with on the Floor of the House.

David Heath: I shall make this point now so that I do not need to do so later. I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. Part 1 of the Bill is clearly a constitutional issue that should be dealt with on the Floor of the House. The Government should withdraw the committal motion and move a new one next week, after discussions through the usual channels.

Oliver Heald: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It is worth mentioning that Lord Holme, who is the Chairman of the Lords' Constitution Committee, has also described part 1 of the Bill as being of first class constitutional importance. There is time in hand, because the Minister has kindly agreed to look at the Regulatory Reform Committee's proposals and respond before the Committee stage, so we are not as short of time as we might be.
	The House supports deregulation and the Opposition are determined that there should be not only a reduction in the stock of regulation, but that we should regulate less, year on year. However, the worry is that this Bill does not refer to deregulation at all. It is a sad reflection on the Government that burdens on business are rising. I have already referred to the burdens barometer produced by the British Chambers of Commerce, which has increased by £40 billion since 1997. That puts in context the Chancellor's target of cutting regulation by £10 billion, because that is only a quarter of the increased burden on business.
	Meanwhile, the World Economic Forum shows that the United Kingdom is becoming less competitive. In 1997, the UK was the fourth most competitive country in the world. It has now fallen to 13th. The World Economic Forum specifically cites regulation and bureaucracy as two of the main obstacles to business in the Britain.

Rob Marris: My understanding of the £40 billion sum is that a large proportion of it—some £26 billion—consists of the minimum wage. If that is the case, is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Conservatives have changed their mind again about the minimum wage? I thought that they now supported it.

Oliver Heald: I have a long list, so I do not really think that I should trespass on the good will of the House.

David Taylor: It is a flip-flop list.

Oliver Heald: It is the "Burdens Barometer" produced by the British Chambers of Commerce. The hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) was telling us how keen he is to represent the interests of small businesses, so perhaps he would find it a useful read. It shows, for example, that in just the past two years, the burden has gone up by £9 billion. That, of course, does not refer to the minimum wage at all, but if the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) wants to read it, I am happy to pass it across the Dispatch Box, if the Minister will allow it to be passed on.

Christopher Chope: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the British Chambers of Commerce said that its estimate of £38.9 billion specifically excludes the cost of the minimum wage?

Oliver Heald: That is my understanding, and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West can now read that with interest.

Tony Wright: This is all very interesting and we hear it regularly, but is not the problem precisely that, alongside the burdens barometer, we must always put the protection barometer? Getting the balance between those two things right is the real challenge. We should consider the arguments that we have had recently about protecting pupils in schools against being taught by paedophiles and a whole revisiting of the associated protections regime. One moment we are anxious about burdens; the next moment we are anxious about protection—but the key thing is to get the balance right between the two.

Oliver Heald: I could not agree more. In fact, later in my speech I will talk about the one in, one out principle that Sir David Arculus considered when he was in charge of the Better Regulation Task Force—now renamed the Better Regulation Commission—when trying to balance new regulation against the removal of outdated regulation. I accept that protection is also important.
	Other measures, such as the International Institute for Management Development's "World Competitiveness Yearbook", show that the UK has fallen from ninth to 22nd since 1997. The London School of Economics recently warned about
	"concerns that tougher competition could be undermined by increasing regulation".
	The CBI has said:
	"Many businesses believe regulation is damaging the UK's attraction as a place to invest . . . the burden has grown and expect it to increase further."
	The Library has shown that there are 3,887 regulations a year on average under this Government—15 every working day. That is a 50 per cent. increase on what happened under the last Conservative Government.
	Against the background of failure that was evident in 2000, Lord Falconer introduced the Regulatory Reform Bill, which was described as a major measure for deregulation. He said:
	"The Bill will provide a major tool to tackle unnecessary over-lapping, over-complex and over-burdensome legislation."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 December 2000; Vol. 620, c. 850.]
	In the House on 19 March 2001, the then Under-Secretary of State for the Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer),
	was asked:
	"Do the Government intend the measure to be used to introduce orders that have a net deregulatory effect—yes or no?"
	He said:
	"The Bill makes it clear that each regulatory reform order must contain a deregulatory element."—[Official Report, 19 March 2001; Vol. 365, c. 118.]
	The Bill was described as "a valuable tool", "an excellent tool" and "a major tool", but the sad history records that only 27 regulatory reform orders have been made, although everyone expected more than 60.
	Of course, a review was promised. It talks about whether it should be possible to amend or appeal primary legislation to do one of three things: remove, reduce, re-enact or impose burdens; simplify legislation; and implement uncontroversial Law Commission recommendations. We wanted that power to be as flexible as possible, so it went out to consultation. Not surprisingly, business groups in particular supported the consultation and the idea of that flexibility, but something strange then occurred. The Government changed tack and removed all reference to removing burdens on business. What we have now is constitutionally novel. The Bill extends the scope of powers available to Ministers while relaxing the constraints of parliamentary scrutiny. Ministers will be able to amend, repeal or pass primary legislation without going through the normal parliamentary procedures. There is no requirement that such measures should have a deregulatory effect, so the danger is that we shall have legislation, regulation and parliamentary corner-cutting with no deregulation at all.
	Like the Minister, the Government talk much about deregulation and better regulation. They have their Better Regulation Commission, with its new chairman, and their simplification process, whereby every Department has to find simpler legislation. Expensive consultants have calculated the costs to many businesses of every burden or cost of regulation. Now, we have the Bill, but the sad truth is that so far, despite the talk, there has been no deregulation.
	All the talk of one in, one out—the idea that every time a regulation is passed another should be repealed—is a vain hope. The Minister will have seen the latest list from the Department of Trade and Industry showing the regulations coming in on 6 April and 1 October—the regulation-making days. It runs to 30 pages, but there is not even the sniff of a list of regulations that will be scrapped. As the Institute of Directors said recently:
	"We are pleased to see all the policy activity, but are still waiting to see tangible action on the ground."

James Brokenshire: Is my hon. Friend aware of the Company Law Reform Bill, currently in another place, which includes provisions for fast-track reforms? If the Government want to speed things up and reduce burdens, might not that measure be the place to start, as it overlaps with the Bill?

Oliver Heald: The Government are taking several overlapping measures, all of which remove power from the House and give it to Ministers. There is a process in the Government of Wales Bill to take power from the House and give it to Wales on a case-by-case basis. There are similar procedures in the Company Law Reform Bill and other measures. My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly), who will wind up the debate, has detailed knowledge of the Company Law Reform Bill and will have something to say about it.
	In Committee, we shall make a range of suggestions to toughen up regulatory impact assessments so that they concentrate on whether regulation is cost-effective and necessary as a last resort. We shall try to include a special assessment of whether small business should be exempt from regulation, instead of the current patchwork, whereby only some small businesses are exempt and there is no clear theme. The Government will have to consider whether small business should be exempt on every occasion, which relates to the point made by the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire about the disproportionate burden on small businesses.
	We want to ensure that regulatory impact assessments are audited at a later date to determine their accuracy. The Better Regulation Commission or the Regulatory Reform Committee might have a role in that. We shall propose sunset clauses, proper post-legislative scrutiny and perhaps an enhanced role for the Law Commission to consider outdated legislation. We shall try to focus the Bill much more on deregulation than regulation.
	Part 1 is of concern due to the breadth of the power taken by the Government to replace, amend or introduce legislation, including any Law Commission Bill. The Minister will be aware of criticisms made by various Committees, and that the Law Commission is considering measures to introduce palimony—giving people who have lived together equal rights with those who divorce. It is also considering how to deal with tenants' rights and the termination of tenancies and with criminal law reform, including reform of the law of murder and the question of provocation in domestic violence.
	I might well agree with the Law Commission about such matters, but they are the sort of issues that hon. Members will want to discuss on the Floor of the House in the normal way because there are strong feelings about them in the House. However, where in the Bill is there anything to reassure us that that will happen? The Minister told the Procedure Committee on Tuesday that the Government would not use the procedure for highly controversial matters and that there was a sort of veto for the two Select Committees. However, I worry about dealing with the matter on the basis of such assurances because I can find no such veto in the Bill.
	The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who cannot be here today, once wrote an article called "Prayers Unanswered" about the change that was made in 1954 to the way in which regulations were considered. The old tradition that every set of regulations was debated on the Floor of the House was changed and statutory instruments were then taken upstairs. The right hon. Gentleman wrote:
	"Until 1954, all prayers could be debated. Any Member could put a prayer down for debate on any sitting day except Friday, and unless a closure was carried there was no time limit at all. In 1954 a rule was established that debates were to end at 11.30 . . . Nonetheless, the Committee which recommended the 1954 rule clearly intended that all prayers would still be debated on the floor of the House and the Leader of the House at the time, Captain Crookshank, insisted that 'if honourable Gentlemen put down prayers, time will be found for prayers.'"
	Of course, the rest is history. I believe that now only a tiny number of prayers are ever debated.
	The Minister has said that we will continue to have full parliamentary debate for terrorism measures and the Parliament Acts, but he must accept that they are of the highest importance among the measures that we expect to debate on the Floor. The House would wish to debate many matters that were controversial, but not in that highest category. I will want the Minister's assurances to be included in the Bill so that they bind his successors.
	The House should also be worried about clause 9, which contemplates conferring functions on the Welsh Assembly without full debate. The Minister needs to explain how the power would operate in conjunction with the Government of Wales Bill. Is it really envisaged that powers will be gradually devolved by the back door using the order-making power in the Bill? Few hon. Members would think that appropriate for something as important as devolution?
	Clause 8 deals with Scottish matters. Does it mean that Sewel motion legislative proposals—changes that are within the remit of the Scottish Parliament, but made by the House—will be dealt with by order? If so, has the Scottish Parliament been consulted? What assurances can the Minister give us that we will have the right to debate important matters? Where in the Bill are those assurances?
	The Regulatory Reform Committee and its equivalent Committee in the other place have the important role of deciding how regulatory reform orders should be dealt with procedurally. Why does that role not include the ability to refer such an order for full parliamentary scrutiny as though it were a Bill? There might be cases in which a Minister's decision about the nature and importance of a measure does not reflect the opinion of the House itself. In such circumstances, surely it would be useful if we were able to transfer into full Bill mode.
	Part 2 of the Bill includes provisions that are based on the Philip Hampton proposals. We welcome his commitment to entrenching the principle of risk assessment throughout the regulatory system and ensuring that administrative burdens are reduced. We also welcome his concentration on substantially reducing the need for form-filling and the requirement to follow good principles of enforcement. Will the Minister confirm that that is what the codes of practice will be about?
	Part 3 seems to introduce simpler provisions for bringing European law into force in the United Kingdom. However, there is reference in clause 26 to "rules" and "schemes" being used to implement provisions, instead of provisions simply being implemented "by regulations". What does the Minister have in mind? We should be interested to hear his reply. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) is here—[Hon. Members: "He is not."]—but I know that he was hoping to ask that very question.
	The Bill should be about deregulation and building a culture of light-touch regulation. We should ensure that Whitehall treats such matters as seriously as it does the passing of new legislation and regulations. I was struck by what the Minister told the Procedure Committee. He conceded that in the present culture it is more exciting and one is more likely to be promoted if one is in charge of or on a Bill team than if one is a successful deregulator—or, in his terms, a better regulator. How to change that culture is at the heart of the problem.
	It is easy to see how a Government who were not all that keen on deregulation could decide to regulate in fields such as social rights—particularly employment rights—and that the regulatory reform order would be a convenient way of doing that. As the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said, the subjective tests in clause 3 are not adequate to protect against that sort of action. The Minister may well agree with the social rights in the EU charter of fundamental rights and want to introduce new legislation on employment rights. Is he able to give us any assurance that he would not use regulatory reform orders to do that sort of thing? Just as it would be simple for a Government who had a strong view on the social rights in the EU charter to introduce those rights through the back door by using such an order, a Government who took a different view could do the opposite. That is precisely what worries the TUC, whose head of equality and employment rights, Sarah Veale, said a couple of days ago:
	"The current government has undertaken not to use RROs for measures that are 'large and controversial', but this will not apply to future governments. Future governments will not be detained long by safeguards that are tested by standards that are matters of judgment and not objective".
	The experience of the introduction of Standing Committee hearings in the 1950s shows what can happen: a procedure is introduced, assurances are given and no one thinks that it will end a particular way of doing things, but over time the protections fall away as Ministers enjoy the convenience of the new arrangements. Both those who worry about the way in which the EU operates and those whose views are the opposite can see how the RRO procedure might be abused. In those circumstances, would it not be right to insert stronger safeguards into part 1?

Rob Marris: I understood the Minister to have given two undertakings: first, that the procedure would not be used for controversial legislation; and secondly, that the Select Committees would in effect have, to use his word, a veto. Would the hon. Gentleman be satisfied if those undertakings were—it would be difficult—put into the Bill?

Oliver Heald: Whether the veto is put into the Bill or introduced by changing the Standing Orders, which might be a better way, it should be a cast-iron measure. I am not happy about the definition of "controversial" or "highly controversial". Originally, the word used was "controversial". The Minister cranked up the language to "highly controversial", and when he was asked for examples, those he gave were of the highest level of importance—ultra-controversial. Our concern is that we do not really know what we are talking about.
	I think that the traditional way of passing a Bill, although it is a laborious procedure, has some advantages. If, during the passage of Bill, one listens to debate and accepts that things need to be changed, one can do that. A super-affirmative procedure would be much more rigid than the procedure used for Bills. I should therefore like to retain the existing arrangements.

David Heath: Matters that may not appear controversial to the Government and Conservative and Liberal Democrat spokesmen may be extremely controversial for Back-Bench Members. Those Back Benchers may not serve on the relevant Committee, so they lack the opportunity to express a strong point of view on behalf of their constituents about a matter that they regard as highly controversial. We need to bear in mind the views of Back-Bench Members as well as those of Front-Bench spokesmen.

Oliver Heald: I entirely agree. That applies to important issues, where conscience is often part of the equation, and could include the question of whether the rights that people have on the breakdown of a long-standing relationship should be the same as those that they have on the breakdown of a marriage. The Law Commission is looking at that issue, and it could easily fall within the ambit of clause 1.
	We do not need more assurances—we need action in the Bill. We accept that the Bill could provide genuine benefits for business, but it requires amendment. Ministerial assurances, too, would be helpful, and we would like the main assurances to be incorporated into the Bill or into Standing Orders. It is particularly important that the fast-track procedure is not available for controversial measures. Things do not necessarily appear highly controversial. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said, Ministers may not think that something is controversial, but many hon. Members may think that it is. It should be possible for Committees to act effectively and second-guess Ministers on such issues. The Bill is a novel constitutional measure, so when it is enacted we will suggest that it should be subject to renewal or a sunset clause, perhaps after five years, which is an appropriate period in which to test it. However, we would not want to give such measures carte blanche at this stage.

Rob Marris: Hon. Members could use the Bill's own procedures to remove the sunset clause.

Oliver Heald: I hope that it is not the case that we could override the sunset clause by an order under part 1, but if it is, we will need to look at that. One thing is for sure, however, namely, that there is a great deal of work to do in Committee.

Alan Williams: The Liaison Committee, like the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), accepts that there is much that is of value in the Bill, and we support that. However, it is not the intent of the Bill that worries us, but its potential impact. I agree entirely with the Regulatory Reform Committee that it is of high constitutional significance. We live in new parliamentary times and every day brings another timetabled Bill. A Bill is not properly formed if it does not have a timetable motion attached, and every Bill is subject to the guillotine procedure. In other words, we have inadequately scrutinised legislation that may result in injustice for people who are at the receiving end. We have inadequately monitored legislation and, under the Bill, Ministers will have the ability to amend primary legislation with a truncated order-making procedure. Inadequate primary legislation will therefore be subject to an inadequate procedure. That fact alone means that the Bill deserves special consideration.
	I was rather concerned by the Under-Secretary's response to pre-legislative scrutiny in the minutes of the Regulatory Reform Committee. I well remember our days in the Public Accounts Committee, when we happily harried accounting officers and individuals guilty of financial misdemeanour, and I know that he is in favour of the parliamentary scrutiny performed by that Committee. I was therefore surprised by his response in the minutes to the concept of parliamentary scrutiny. He said that it had been offered last time but had not produced what the Government wanted, so there would be no pre-legislative scrutiny this time. That is a mild paraphrase, but it conveys the impact of what was said. I worry about how Ministers might interpret the powers, once they have them.
	The Regulatory Reform Committee asked that its remit should be widened. I hope that we can get a firm commitment from the Minister that that will be done. As was said by the Opposition spokesman, the new legislation does not even have to show that it will reduce burdens. The only burdens that are guaranteed to be reduced are the parliamentary burdens on Ministers, because they will choose the type of scrutiny that a measure gets. They can choose the negative procedure, and there is nothing that anyone can do about it. So the Bill is burden-relieving, but not quite in the way that most of us anticipated.
	As has been pointed out, the safeguards in the Bill are less than are in the existing Act and, worryingly, less than those outlined in the consultative process. The Bill is remarkably devoid of safeguards and guarantees. I welcome assurances, but in parliamentary terms, there is no assurance as good as an assurance written into a Bill.

David Heath: The wise words of the Father of the House ought to have struck home, even if the words of the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and my own do not. We need careful scrutiny of part 1, and that should be on the Floor of the House to enable all Members to participate if they so wish.
	I have already apologised to the Minister, to the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire and to the Chair, and I now apologise to the House for the fact that I will, unfortunately and exceptionally, have to miss the later speeches in this debate. I hope that hon. Members will recognise that that is not the way I usually do business in the House, and I regret that I will not be able to observe the normal courtesies of the House.
	I commend the Minister for introducing the Bill in his usual way. I am almost beginning to forget that there ever was a Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and to wonder what the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster did, but we shall no doubt see a successor eventually, or perhaps not. Who knows? In any case, a Bill that declares itself to be a vehicle for regulatory reform is transparently a good thing. It is the parliamentary equivalent of motherhood and apple pie to say that we all want to reduce the burdens of regulation. However, successive Governments fail to do that and there have been incremental increases in the burden.
	Any Bill, the prospectus of which is to reduce the regulatory burden, should be welcomed, but—and it is a big but—as the poet had it,
	"timeo Danaos et dona ferentis"—
	I fear a Greek bearing gifts or, to put it in modern form, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is too good to be true. The Bill is a classic case of that.
	We look for consolidation of regulation, and for reduction or extinction of regulation. That is an extraordinarily important part of the process. We are very good at creating regulation, but not at looking back to see whether it is still relevant to the purposes for which it was first introduced, or whether it is simply a relic that has become a burden without benefit. If the Bill were entirely about that, I would welcome it.
	Parts of the Bill are useful—for example, I want to see an accelerated method for bringing Law Commission proposals into law. The proposals on translating European law into British law are not exceptional, apart from the fact that they have not been coupled to the fundamental reform of how we do the job in this House. If anything is desperately needed, it is a better way of examining European regulation and considering how it will apply, whether it has been added to and the effect that it will have on British businesses and British individuals.

John Redwood: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need scrutiny before draft regulations are agreed in Brussels? Some years ago, I was Minister with responsibility for the single market, and I always brought matters to the House before undertaking negotiations, which often helps Ministers, because if the House is hostile to a regulation, it strengthens their hand. It is no use scrutinising a European regulation after it is a done deal.

David Heath: I could not agree more. Most European legislatures conduct such matters much better than us. We need not only prior scrutiny, but a transparent process in Europe to enable us to know what Ministers are doing on our behalf, which is another deficiency.
	The intent of the legislation on regulatory functions is welcome. However, hon. Members have made it clear that part 1 is unacceptable and that it must be amended before we can accept it. Even if one takes at face value the assurances from the Minister and from the Government as a whole and believes that they will be carried through, we are still legislating for a massive shift of power to the Executive and away from the legislature. The Executive may change in the future, so we, as parliamentarians, must ensure that we put in safeguards.
	The Government recognise that the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 has not worked as well as it should have done. It has some benefits, but the mechanism is cumbersome and capable of improvement. All hon. Members want to see a reduction in the administrative burden on businesses. Businesses have welcomed the introduction of the Bill, although it would have been odd if they had not done so. As the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) has said, the weaknesses in the current legislation include not only the translation of regulation into law, but the initiation of the regulatory process. The evaluation of such legislation has also raised some issues.
	The hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) has made the key point that regulation has a wholly disproportionate effect on small businesses and micro-businesses. Hon. Members will have received information from the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, which has estimated that 73 per cent. of the total £7 billion cost of regulation on business falls on the smallest businesses. A long time ago, I managed a small business on the high street—my practice—but even in those days, I noticed that the cost of regulation was rising. Small businesses do not have human resources departments to deal with regulation. They have a proprietor—the person who ends up as the dogsbody having to do everything, with a wholly disproportionate burden laid upon them. I hope that we will particularly recognise the position of small businesses.
	That worries me in another way. I do not want to create a facility for deregulation which solely favours those who have the big battalions behind them. The trigger for reform will often be those who have the resources to mount the campaign—or, even worse, the ear of a suitable Cabinet Minister—and can create the circumstances for deregulation which favours the concerns of the largest businesses at the expense of those who work in the same market but do not have the same resources. We must be extremely cautious about that.

Oliver Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman envisage the possibility of an enlarged role for the Law Commission in looking at some deregulatory laws at a certain distance from the time at which they are passed—say, five years?

David Heath: I am not sure that the Law Commission is the right vehicle. I have enormous respect for it, but this is not a role for which it would be best suited. However, audit bodies of various kinds could provide an extremely useful function. I would very much like to see such retrospective evaluation.
	Having been involved in countless Home Office Bills over recent years, I am conscious of the fact that we have often had to amend Bills before they have even come into effect—even the criminal justice Bill of whatever year that was going to be the end of crime as we know it. We need to get a grip on the cumulative effect of legislation, and the House needs to have the right advice to be able to do its job of post-legislative scrutiny much more effectively than it does now.

Tony Wright: The Law Commission has just completed a report on post-legislative scrutiny. The fact that people do not know about it is perhaps the most revealing thing of all.

David Heath: I am aware of it. However, I also know that the hon. Gentleman's Committee has been talking about this for a very long time. It is a shame that the message has not got through to the Government, or to the plurality of Members.
	The Minister remarked on the number of people who have welcomed the Bill. I would say that they are welcoming a Bill, but not necessarily this Bill, given the extraordinary powers that part 1 gives to Ministers. I do not expect some of our business interlocutors to have carefully scrutinised the powers of parliamentary scrutiny in part 1, as that is not their business. It is our business, however, and we should be alarmed by what we read. It is of course capable of improvement, but we must be very careful. Such provisions are often described as Henry VIII clauses. Poor old Henry VIII, alone among autocratic monarchs, seems to get the blame for most things. Nevertheless, we should worry about the autocracy involved in this case.
	Clause 1 refers to the broad purpose of "reforming legislation". What does "reforming" mean? The only requirement is that one must have legislation to reform; one cannot make new law, but one can reform it. That undefined term appears right at the start of the Bill.

Oliver Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that Henry VIII was relatively innocent when compared with our current Prime Minister? He appointed far fewer Lords and changed far fewer laws.

David Heath: Our current Prime Minister has yet to abolish the monastic tradition and he has fewer wives. However, it is an interesting comparison. We no longer have the Lord Chancellor who liked to compare himself to Wolsey, but let us not pursue the analogy further.
	Conditions are dotted around the Bill. Clause 12(3) provides a list of conditions but they do not apply to clause 1. There is therefore a disconnection that we need to tackle.
	Clause 2 covers the law. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) was right to say that it grants a power to amend common law, even if the Law Commission has made no such proposal. I am sorry, but we cannot give a Minister such a power—it is not acceptable for a Minister to have that power without the House's agreement.
	I also agree with the important point about increasing the penalty for criminal offences. I asked the Under-Secretary in what circumstances he envisaged the provision being appropriate. He did not reply but simply said that the power was limited to scale 5. Why should it exist at all? When would it be appropriate for a Minister to increase the penalty for criminal offences without primary legislation and recourse to the House? It is an inappropriate power.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) said, clause 3 provides for a subjective test, and that is wrong because whatever slight protection the law affords is thus immediately eliminated. If a Minister determines subjectively what it is reasonable for him to do, we have a circular process that makes it difficult to show that the action was unreasonable and that a Minister was deluded in believing that he should take upon himself powers that properly belong to the House. I accept that it is almost impossible to challenge at law the legislative process. However, even the initial stages should at least allow the possibility of justiciability. My hon. Friend made a powerful point, which I hope he has the opportunity to pursue later.
	Many references have been made to the conditions but they are substantially weaker than those in the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, even leaving aside the codicils and applicable references. The consultation paper said that the safeguards had worked well and remained essential. If that is the case, why does the Bill water them down?
	We will have to rely on Standing Order No. 141. Perhaps we need a more direct read-across from Standing Orders to the Bill because Standing Orders have one meaning, statute law has another and the two should be reconciled as much as possible.
	The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire mentioned the Government of Wales Bill. I hope that he does not suggest its recommittal. One can have too much of a good thing. However, it is clearly a matter that we can consider.
	There are other causes of concern, for example, the possibility of legislation that is secondary to secondary legislation. We cannot allow that. Clause 2(2) provides for "any person" to have the power rather than a Minister. Am I alone in believing that the power is not capable of delegation and that it is a matter for a Minister of the Crown, who is answerable to the House rather than "any person"?
	There is also the veto and the Regulatory Reform Committee's proposals. The Under-Secretary said that he was looking at the matter closely. From the transcript of the Committee's proceedings, it appears that he looked closely to find the bit that he thought was already covered but was not. So I hope that he will table amendments on this matter in Committee. He can be certain, however, that if he does not, others will, because we need to make this clear.
	The Bill has the potential to be extremely important in constitutional terms. That is why the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire and I—and, I think, by implication, the Father of the House—have suggested that it should be discussed on the Floor of the House. I hope that the Minister will be able to bring us a message from his Whips that they do not intend to move the programme motion this evening, that the Government will allow wiser counsel to prevail, and that they will bring the Bill back to the House next week.
	I have taken a dim view of part 1. Does this mean that I will advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the Bill's Second Reading? No, because we need a Bill that does the things that this Bill claims to intend to do. I also believe that this Bill is capable of redemption, but if substantial changes are not made to part 1, either in Committee or on Report, there is no way that I could advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the Bill on Third Reading. Moreover, I am absolutely confident that it would be amended beyond recognition in another place if it remained in its present state. The Minister has given every indication that he is prepared to listen to the points that have been raised in this debate, so I hope that he will listen to our considerable concerns about part 1 and react appropriately.

Tony Wright: The Under-Secretary of State for the Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr. Murphy) teased me a little during our earlier exchanges about the extent of my interest in matters of parliamentary procedure. I shall now get my retaliation in. When I was discussing these matters with him the other day, I noticed that the pockets of his suit were still stitched up, just as they were when he took delivery of it a long time ago. He assured me that this was not because he was a Scotsman. He said that it was a measure of simplification, and part of his attack on the bloated, the bulging and the unnecessary, and that it was therefore entirely in the spirit of the Bill. I offer that to the House simply as an initial observation.
	The Bill is about legislation, and it reminds us that we are a legislative sausage machine here. Governments come along, they give us stuff, and they stuff it into the machine. We process it—more or less—and it comes out the other end. It is then possible to claim that Parliament has decided on something or other. As we are just talking among ourselves this afternoon, however, I think that we can probably tell the story more truthfully. This Government and all Governments legislate too much. We legislate badly, we scrutinise legislation inadequately, and we do not revisit it when we have passed it—we simply go on to the next bit. We all suffer because of that.
	I say that because I do not want us to be starry-eyed about our normal way of doing legislative business here. Even though we may be worried about other procedures that are being suggested to us, we should not suggest that the alternative to what is being proceeded with is some splendid mechanism of detailed scrutiny. We may like to tell the outside world, and we may like to see it written in the constitutional textbooks, that we engage in dispassionate, line by line scrutiny of legislative proposals here, but we know that that is not the case.
	We should thank our lucky stars that most of the public never get inside Standing Committees. They never see the way in which legislation is routinely processed here: members of the Government side are required merely to be there and to say as little as possible in order to get the business through, and the Opposition, as far as they can, play a game of delay. Measures are taken through on whipped votes. We often vote for things that we do not think are very good. That is how we do it in all parties, at all times. Therefore we should not believe, in discussing alternative procedures, that the way that we deal with legislation here routinely is particularly admirable.

Oliver Heald: I accept that we often do not do as good a job as we should, but does not the hon. Gentleman think that he is going slightly over the top? I remember some very good Standing Committee discussions about particular provisions of particular Bills. We have had some good examples recently of excellent debates on the religious hatred provisions. Obviously, the outcome was not to everyone's taste but it was a high-quality debate.

Tony Wright: Occasionally, that is so. I do not want to digress but my first experience here was to sit on a Committee considering a private Member's Bill. We had a splendid Standing Committee sitting. People took good points from across the Committee and came to sensible agreements. The Bill came back to the Floor of the House and was killed off by the Government of the day, as though the Committee never took place. I thought naively that Bills were going to be discussed in the way in which that private Member's Bill was discussed in that Committee. Of course, it was nothing of the kind.
	I think everyone recognises that we have to scrutinise legislation much better. That is why we have been anxious to develop, for example, draft scrutiny of Bills. The Government are to be commended for developing that further but they are also to be slightly chastised, as the number of draft Bills is beginning to fall off again. That was a major innovation in our achieving better scrutiny of Bills.

John Redwood: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the difference between what is proposed and what currently happens with a Bill is significant? Any Government Back Bencher who gets on to a Committee by accident, or any Opposition Back Bencher or Front-Bench spokesman, can table an amendment or new clause that may light a flame and get people talking about it. It may then produce exactly the debate that we want. That would be impossible if the measures before us today were enacted.

Tony Wright: I accept that that can and sometimes does happen; I would dispute that that is routinely what happens. There are, in some respects, better ways of doing it. They have been captured to a degree by the way in which regulatory reform orders work, so I am not averse to exploring that procedure further.
	The fantasy that I sometimes have is of a Government coming to the House with a Queen's Speech that says, "This year, my Government will introduce no new Bills. We are simply going to make sure that the existing legislation works well, that our administrative systems are working efficiently and that we do not return to new legislation until we are sure that our existing legislation is of a certain standard." Of course, that is a fantasy that will never be realised either from this Government or any other, but it is a discipline. There is something about the machine that simply has to drive ever onwards. The virility test for Ministers and for Departments is how much they can get in the legislative programme this year, not whether what they got in last year is working well and doing the things that they said it was going to do. At some point, we shall have to get hold of that huge issue, which goes against the culture of every Government and of the whole Government machine.

John Hemming: As someone who, perhaps by mistake, got on to the Regulatory Reform Committee, I have made an interesting observation that many of the regulatory reform orders increase the power of Government. Perhaps that is because they come from civil servants, who, like turkeys, do not vote for Christmas.

Tony Wright: I am interested in that observation. I have not served on that Committee, but I am told by some who have that it has offered a way of scrutinising some of these orders that is quite different from the process that I caricatured, moving far more towards the sort of procedure that can be captured by a Special Standing Committee. We must move in all those kinds of directions, away from just treating pieces of legislation in terms of the normal party dogfight, and towards getting some intelligent scrutiny. We do that much better through Special Standing Committees. We do it better when we consider Bills in draft. We can also do it better, as I understand it, through the regulatory order scrutiny procedure. We should be cautious about setting our face against these developments, which have a lot to be said for them.
	Having said all that, what is proposed in the Bill—as various Members have said—is unquestionably a major constitutional issue. As has been said, that is the case for considering it in the way in which we normally consider such measures. I know that the Government will think about that.
	The whole area of deregulation and better regulation has a history. I enjoyed being reminded of the background to the deregulation measures of the Major Government. I was reminded of John Major's speech to the Conservative party conference in October 1992—[Interruption.] Indeed, some hon. Members were there. John Major anointed Michael Heseltine no less, then the President—as he liked to be called—of the Board of Trade, to take responsibility for attacking regulation and leading the deregulation agenda. He said to the conference:
	"Who better for hacking back the jungle? Come on, Michael. Out with your club. On with your loin cloth. Swing into action!"
	That was very good.
	Within a short space of time of being given the job, however, Michael Heseltine discovered that it was not so straightforward. By that time, he had moved on to become the Government's general troubleshooter, and, my goodness, there was a lot of trouble at that time to shoot. He came before the Public Service Committee on 10 December 1996, to talk about how he was getting on with his deregulatory mission. He said:
	"This is the dilemma of deregulation, that it is never simple, very rarely are you able just to say, 'Get rid of this', because you are dealing with health, safety, environment, vital aspects of a civilised society. Sometimes you can modify, but once you get into modification you get into complexity".
	That was why I inserted into our exchanges with the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) earlier the point that, in a sense, every burden carries a protection with it. That was Michael Heseltine's conclusion, which is why the process is trickier than we sometimes think.
	The Government have been right to move from that narrow focus on deregulation to a better focus on better regulation—as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development says, from red tape to smart tape—which gets the notion of the balance right. We should remind ourselves that sometimes we do get things right. The OECD country report on regulation in Britain stated in 2002:
	"With twenty years of continuous effort behind it, the United Kingdom is one of the most experienced OECD countries in regulatory reform . . . A constant up-grading of instruments has occurred simultaneously with the establishment of an array of regulatory policies, institutions, and tools, many of them innovative and unprecedented. This has formed a set of broadly efficient, transparent and accountable regulatory systems of high quality."
	Across parties over the past 15 years or so, we have developed a robust and sophisticated approach to the whole issue of regulation. The Bill, however, represents a radical departure. The Government have decided on the most radical of the options that they discussed: they are taking power to reform any legislation. That is an extraordinary development, which requires the most careful discussion and scrutiny.
	We must retain the value of some of the scrutiny mechanisms that we have developed in existing regulatory reform orders, and build in safeguards. My approach is fairly straightforward: yes, there is a case for new powers, but they must be matched by new safeguards. That is the only way in which to make the proposals acceptable.
	The three main safeguards are these. First, there must be some limit on the use of the powers. It cannot be right to allow Ministers to reform any legislation in any way that they choose. The Regulatory Reform Committee has suggested that there should be a list of off-limits subjects. Another approach would be to allow change that was compatible with and proportionate to the original legislation. Ministers would then be able to use their powers to simplify legislation and bring it up to date, but they would not be able to transform the law in a way that was entirely different from Parliament's original intention. That would preserve a clear distinction between proposals requiring primary legislation and proposals that could be dealt with through secondary legislation.
	Secondly, an effective veto is needed. If the Government are to be given more flexibility, it is no longer satisfactory for the veto to rest on an undertaking alone. The Government's own consultation document claims:
	"Parliament will always and should always remain the guardian of what is appropriate to be delivered by RRO."
	It also makes it clear that there can be no straightforward principles such as size or even complexity. If that is the case, Parliament must be able to exercise its guardianship order by order, not simply by approving the procedure in the Bill.
	Thirdly, any proposals to change primary legislation must be properly scrutinised. The Regulatory Reform Committee has called for a minimum scrutiny of 60 days. It is interesting to note that parliamentary scrutiny currently accounts for only a small part of the time taken to process regulatory reform orders. An interesting table in the Regulatory Reform Committee's report shows that on average, the parliamentary scrutiny stage takes only 16 per cent. of the total time taken from initial consultation to approval, so that is not where the delay is occurring. That does not mean, however, that scrutiny should not be proportionate. The Committee itself has suggested that if it is felt that certain proposals need no amendment, it could be possible to do without the second stage of the scrutiny process.
	For me—and, I suspect, a good number of others—if the principle is to be followed that the advancement of ministerial powers must all the time be matched by advancement in safeguards on the use of those powers, the House should expect the three safeguards that I have outlined to be included in the Bill, in order to provide that security. While I welcome the thrust of the Government's aims, the danger is that ministerial powers could be extended in ways that Parliament did not want or intend, and perhaps was not even aware of.

Christopher Chope: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright). I have been waiting to hear a speech in support of the Government's proposal, and he rightly drew attention to the challenges associated with regulation. That struck a chord with my own experience. In 1992, I was a member of Mr. Heseltine's deregulation taskforce and I also served on the Health and Safety Commission, which was tasked with trying to reduce the burden of regulation. In that era and the current one, Governments have always talked of proportionality and the introduction of regulation based on risk assessment. Sadly, however, the trend has continued toward more prescriptive regulation. We will discuss on Monday the latest stage of the Identity Cards Bill, which is an example of prescriptive regulation rather than regulation based on risk assessment.
	I want to begin by quoting from the letter of the Chairman of the Constitution Committee of the House of Lords to the Lord Chancellor, dated 23 January. He says that
	"we are concerned by the potential of the Bill's proposals, if enacted, markedly to alter the respective and long-established roles of Ministers and Parliament in the legislative process."
	So he regards this as a serious constitutional issue, which indeed it is. That is why I hope that the Government will withdraw motion 2 on the Order Paper. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), who is Chairman of the Procedure Committee, very much wanted to join in this afternoon's debate but has had to travel north to visit a relative in hospital. It was he who wrote on the Procedure Committee's behalf to the Leader of the House, who today said that he was considering my right hon. Friend's letter. Well, the time for considering it will be much greater if he withdraws motion 2, rather than trying to force it through this evening.
	I recently had the privilege of being reappointed to the Procedure Committee after a gap of some 20 years. When I first served on it, during the Parliament elected in 1983, its membership included Sir Robin Maxwell-Hyslop and the right hon. Enoch Powell. Enoch Powell would be proud of the contribution being made on these very important constitutional issues by the current Member of Parliament for his former constituency, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris).
	It was Enoch Powell who once succinctly described to me the importance of the procedures of the House—and that was not just because we were both members of the Procedure Committee. He said that in the absence of a written constitution, the procedures of Parliament and of the Commons in particular are, effectively, our constitution: our protection of the people and their liberties against the Executive. That is why today's debate and this Bill are of such importance.
	The Minister said that the Bill had stringent safeguards that were more extensive than those in the 2001 Act, but the hon. Member for Cannock Chase and the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) pointed out that the safeguards were not as extensive as the Minister asserted. Indeed, the precondition that a burden on an individual or a business would have to be removed is no longer part of the Bill. That important safeguard was included in the consultation process but was then dropped by the Government.
	The Minister gave evidence to the Procedure Committee on Tuesday and said that the 2001 Act defined "burden" too narrowly, because it had to be a legal burden that was being eased rather than an administrative one. I have no problem with extending the definition of burden, but the more logical solution would be to widen the definition rather than remove completely any requirement that burdens should be reduced, if the special procedure is to be used.
	The House was very careful to ensure that the protections in the 2001 Act were extensive. On Tuesday, the Procedure Committee asked the Minister whether they would remain, and the Minister replied that "every single protection" in the 2001 Act would. In answer to question 6, he said that, ultimately, the Select Committee could
	"kick the whole thing out and say, 'We do not believe that this fits the right of Parliament and protections of Parliament to legislate in a sensible way.'"
	The Minister ascribed to the Regulatory Reform Committee the right of veto, saying that it was a real protection for Parliament. In answer to question 9, he said that the Committee had the ultimate power to say that an order should not go ahead at all. In answer to question 12, he said that
	"indeed, they could just say, 'We don't think this is suitable at all for this committee' and we are back to the drawing board to seek an alternative way of implementing the order."
	The Minister gave the Committee's Chairman an absolute undertaking that it would have an absolute veto if it felt the subject matter was too sensitive and politically controversial.
	When the Minister winds up the debate, I hope he will confirm that those assurances given to the Committee will be included on the face of the Bill; nothing short of that will do. The Government have suggested that they might bring forward the appropriate amendments: until they do, I and many other hon. Members will wonder what possible reason there could be for not including such provisions on the face of the Bill. The existing procedures have not been tested in the circumstances that would apply when the Government disagreed with the Regulatory Reform Committee. None of that Committee's recommendations have resulted in a debate on the Floor of the House, with the Government forcing through a measure using the procedures available under the 2001 Act.
	It was implicit in the Minister's evidence to the Procedure Committee that he considered that the Government's powers to force a measure through against the will of the Committee would never be used by a responsible and reasonable Government. We have the opportunity to ensure that that is the case. If that happens, I shall not be as sceptical as I admit to being at present.
	In its present form, the Bill is in danger of being the sort of subtle sleight of hand of which a member of the Magic Circle would be proud. It is calculated to give much more power to the Government and the Executive, at the expense of Parliament. One reading of the Bill leads one to the conclusion that its primary purpose is not to remove burdens from business or people, but to remove the burden of having to legislate from the Government.
	The Bill is the ultimate guillotine for debate and discussion. What a bore it must be for Ministers to have to bring Bills before Parliament if they want to change the law, even the common law. It would be so much easier if they did not have to publish a Bill, wait a couple of weeks for Second Reading, and then sit for the best part of a day in the Chamber listening to Members going on about it. Then they have to go up to Committee and answer points made on amendments, and even respond to new clauses that the Government might find embarrassing or annoying. It would be so much easier if the Government could just do away with all that and put their legislative proposals through this new, streamlined procedure. A strong Government would always be prepared, in extremis, to use the powers available. This is our chance to ensure that we do not give such draconian powers to this or any subsequent Government. That is why the Bill will have to be amended to reflect the concerns that have been expressed by two Select Committees and many right hon. and hon. Members.
	No Member is a greater enthusiast for deregulation and lifting burdens from business than I am. If the Bill were solely designed to facilitate genuine deregulation and remove burdens, I would be among its strongest supporters. However, I remain to be convinced that that is its primary purpose.
	We are used to Government rhetoric and we do not need to rehearse the 45 minutes saga or the weapons of mass destruction when we have before us examples of where the Government have said one thing and done another on this specific subject of deregulation. In its 1997 election manifesto specifically for business, published in April 1997, the Labour party promised:
	"We will not impose burdensome regulations on business because we understand that successful businesses must keep costs down."
	In the 2001 election, having imposed many more burdens on business in the interim, Labour promised in its business manifesto:
	"We will deregulate where desirable and regulate where necessary, with as light a touch as possible."
	In 2005, the promise was repeated in the full manifesto:
	"We will only regulate where necessary and will set exacting targets for reducing the costs of administering regulations."
	However, as my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) said, the Government have increased the number of regulations, the burden of regulation and the cost to business and enterprise. The hon. Member for Cannock Chase questioned whether the £38.9 billion figure included the cost of the minimum wage. I have looked at the briefing from the BCC and it specifically excludes the cost of the minimum wage. If that was included, it would push the figure up to an even more astronomic level.
	We know, from the Library, that in the six years from 1998 to 2003 there were 23,322 regulations, an average of 3,887 a year or 14.85 every working day. Matters were bad enough under the Conservative Government, but this Government have increased the number of regulations by 50 per cent. since the Conservative record was set.
	When the Government say that they will not use the powers that they are taking in this Bill—they say, "Trust us, we're really on your side"—I think that it is incumbent on us on behalf of our constituents to look more closely at their record of delivering what they say they will do. They have manifestly failed to deliver in the area of deregulation and lifting burdens on business.
	The only way that we can guarantee that the Government deliver what they say they intend is to get the Bill amended in the way that many right hon. and hon. Members and I have suggested. I hope that my scepticism will not be borne out and that, by the time that we debate the Bill on Third Reading, it will incorporate those much-needed amendments, and I live in hope.

Alison Seabeck: First, I offer the House an explanation for the absence from the debate of the Chairman of the Select Committee on Regulatory Reform. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) is attending the funeral of an old friend and former leader of the local council. His contribution will be missed.
	I broadly support the general thrust of the Bill, but like a number of other hon. Members, I will seek clarification from the Minister in several key areas. I suspect that, before he makes the offer, I ought to volunteer to serve on the Standing Committee, although I feel that a number of genuine concerns should be dealt with by a Committee of the whole House.
	I shall focus the bulk of my remarks on part 1, which falls within the remit of the Regulatory Reform Committee, of which I am a member, and on which we have issued a special report to hon. Members. Many contributions have been based on that report. As we have heard, part 1 will allow Ministers to amend, repeal and replace primary and secondary legislation. Of course, that could include legislation that was enacted very recently.
	What is the Bill trying to achieve? Clearly, Ministers are seeking to convince the House that the Bill is intended primarily to reduce burdens placed on business and other organisations. It is also intended to assist in speeding up the process by which changes are made to existing legislation. Again, I have no doubt that Ministers have that entirely laudable aim in mind, but, reading between the lines, this uncontroversial Bill could be very significant constitutionally.
	The Bill is the end result of a fairly lengthy process, including a detailed review of the operation of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001. The review was completed in July 2005 and the process was informed throughout by Departments, as well as by the recommendations of the Better Regulation Task Force. The review flagged up some of the problems that appeared to be inhibiting the production of regulatory reform orders, as well as areas where it was felt the scope should be extended to enable the better delivery of non-controversial proposals.
	Such things would include recommendations from the Law Commission, including changes to common law—again, something that is controversial. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) raised that issue very well earlier today. The structural reform of regulatory bodies could be considered, as well as the implementation of the Hampton proposals to merge private sector regulators. That is not mentioned directly in the Bill, but it would be possible because the law reform powers could embrace such change.
	One of the Committee's concerns when looking at the detail of the review was that it failed to identify the main causes of the delays in introducing regulatory reform orders. The evidence that the Committee considered, to which hon. Members have referred, made it plain that Departments are slow in bringing such proposals to Parliament, as well as in making the orders once Parliament has responded and made recommendations. For example, our Committee reported no changes on the Regulatory Reform (Execution of Deeds and Documents ) Order 2004, but it still took three and a half months before the order was made. The consultation-to-order-made process on the Regulatory Reform (Sugar Beet Research and Education) Order 2003 lasted 1,924 days, of which only 113 days were for parliamentary scrutiny. Clearly, Departments could and should be doing better.
	The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), who led for the Opposition, touched on an interesting point that related to the culture of taking a Bill through Parliament and how important that can be for civil servants and Ministers. It is clearly a lot sexier—if I can use that word in the House—than deregulating by order. I suspect that that will come up again in the Committee.
	With regulation and deregulation, it is important to maintain the delicate balance of protecting standards and ensuring fairness and safety at work, while allowing organisations room to breathe, and we clearly do not always get it right. Similarly, we have to ensure that the Bill achieves the right balance between extending the power of Ministers and the desire to streamline and speed up decisions designed to lift burdens from businesses and other organisations, while ensuring that there is adequate scrutiny and protection to avoid abuse.
	When the Under-Secretary appeared before the Regulatory Reform Committee, he made it clear that the Bill would deal only with uncontroversial measures. There is no doubt that some of the Law Commission recommendations should be straightforward to implement. My problem is with the definition of "uncontroversial", as the meaning of the word is not clear in the Bill. As Members on both sides of the House have pointed out, in the wrong hands, the legislation could be used to implement decisions that had not been thoroughly reviewed by the House.
	The Bill gives Ministers power to bring forward primary legislation by ministerial order, which does not involve the process that we all understand—Second Reading, Committee and Report in both Houses. We need to understand, feel comfortable with and confident of the mechanisms for distinguishing controversial and uncontroversial proposals. How will the measure deal with the grey areas that will undoubtedly arise? Will there be an assumption that if something falls into that category it must be controversial? We need clarification of that element of the Bill.
	Like the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, the Bill contains safeguards, but as colleagues on the Opposition Benches have argued today, its protection may be less robust than that offered by the 2001 Act. I should welcome reassurance from the Minister on that point.
	Unlike the 2001 Act, the scope of the Bill will not be limited by a requirement that the Minister identify the burdens to be reduced or removed. Indeed, the word "burden", like the word "uncontroversial", is not mentioned in the Bill. I agree with the Minister that the concept of a burden as defined in the 2001 Act is narrow; in effect, it means a legal burden, including a restriction or a requirement. As my hon. Friend said in his opening remarks, in the past that definition has been difficult to apply, which is one reason why the implementation of regulatory reform orders has sometimes been slow or impossible.
	The Bill offers Ministers a fast-track procedure, which is welcome in many ways. The reduction of red tape, as well as the ability to get rid of redundant regulation quickly, has support on both sides of the House. Labour Members and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development have pointed out that the Government have one of the best records in the world on deregulation, making the UK one of the easiest places in which to establish a business.
	Business is keen to see the proposed changes. The majority of submissions received by the Regulatory Reform Committee supported proposals to speed up change, enable lighter risk inspections and streamline the business inspectorate. The British Chambers of Commerce also supported that view, so I was surprised that evidence of their concerns about regulation was touted. Four of the measures in the document cited by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire added up to 55 per cent. of his calculation: the Working Time Regulations 1998, the Vehicle Excise Duty (Reduced Pollution) Regulations 1998, the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002 and the Disability Discrimination (Providers of Services) (Adjustment of Premises) Regulations 2001. I should be interested to learn which of those the Opposition want to abolish to save money, time or effort.
	I support the aim of the Bill, which is to challenge Departments to consider measures to reduce the overall burden on business. I want Departments to record in their annual report the progress they have made, not only with figures to show what they have achieved, but explanations of how they made those achievements and how long they took, rather than bland statements such as, "We are making good progress in this area", which are, unfortunately, all too common in Government annual reports.
	Almost all the responses to the consultation and to the Committee expressed the view that lighter inspection was appropriate, as long as it was intelligence-risk-based. Business certainly welcomes that, due to its perceived impact on productivity. Concerns have been voiced that we must be confident that a lighter touch does not lead to corner-cutting. Trade unions have expressed the view that there would be health and safety implications for some employees, so I should welcome reassurance from the Minister on that point.
	Business will be relieved to learn that the Bill proposes the streamlining of business inspectorates. The significant reduction in their number from 29 to seven should enable inspectors to co-ordinate their work better and prevent repetitive visits, which are onerous on those being inspected. There will be a comparable reduction in the number of public service inspectorates from 11 to four.
	Although the Committee and I wholeheartedly support most of the proposals in the Bill, there is a need to put in place additional safeguards. We need a shift back towards paying heed to the views of Parliament. The way forward would be to identify in the Bill legislation that would be off limits for the new fast-track process. We need several no-go areas beyond those that the Minister described as being of the highest importance. It should be possible to put in place a veto so that during the preliminary period of procedural consideration, it would be possible for either House of Parliament by resolution, or the appropriate Committee in either House that was charged with reporting on the order by recommendation, not only to vary the Minister's recommendation for procedure on a given draft order, but to determine that the part 1 procedure should not apply at all. If such a determination were made, no further draft order to the same effect, albeit perhaps tweaked a little, should be laid within two years of the determination date. If we were to adopt such a procedure, we would need to examine the role and powers of the responsible Committee following a consideration of the Standing Orders. Has the Minister had any discussions with the Leader of the House about the implications of such a change?
	The Regulatory Reform Committee also thought that serious consideration should be given in the House and Committee to the need to reinforce parliamentary procedures. Three proposals were put forward in the special report, but I shall not go through them now because they are comprehensively covered in the report. All I ask is that hon. Members consider them carefully and give their views to the Minister and members of the Standing Committee. It is the view of the Regulatory Reform Committee that none of the proposals would alter the Bill or extend the scrutiny period beyond that which the Cabinet Office states that it needs. I have no doubt that the hon. Members who are selected to serve on the Standing Committee—if the Bill is not considered by a Committee of the whole House—will want to consider carefully the Bill alongside the thoughts expressed in the Regulatory Reform Committee's special report. I look forward to not only the Minister's closing remarks, but his response to the report before the Bill is considered in Committee.

John Redwood: The Under-Secretary showed great courtesy to the House. I got the impression that he, like many hon. Members, has deep reservations about two aspects of our proceedings. I thought that he acknowledged that the Bill had considerable constitutional implications and he might well share the view that it should be considered on the Floor of the House so that the implications of part 1 can be properly exposed. I got the impression, as did the Select Committee, that he believed that the House should have the right of veto on any measure going through the accelerated procedure if it, or its Committees, thought that the matter was of considerable significance or controversy and thus should be dealt with in a more lengthy and suitable manner.
	The fact that an Under-Secretary is handling the Bill, rather than a Cabinet Minister, is sad. The Government, through speeches made by the Prime Minister and other means, have said that they regard deregulation as central to their mission. The Under-Secretary himself opened his speech by telling us that the setting for the legislation was the pressing need for deregulation because too much bureaucracy and regulation was eroding the competitiveness and success of British commerce and industry. Is it thus not curious that we do not have someone of Cabinet seniority handling a central measure that is part of the Government's economic and wider social strategy? Although I pay full compliments to the Under-Secretary for handling our proceedings as he is, is it not worrying that no one with Cabinet rank and clout is available to solve such difficult problems? It is much easier for a senior Cabinet Minister to go to the Chief Whip or business managers and say, "There's trouble in the House. What we're trying to do is a bit extreme. I must have time on the Floor of the House to deal with these sensitive matters." It is much easier for a Cabinet Minister in a debate such as this one to say, "Of course the House must have a veto on these procedures for controversial and difficult issues, and I am happy to make that compromise today." The Under-Secretary has done his best with gestures and kind words, but he does not have that authority or power because the Prime Minister has not backed him and given him the job of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. We need a Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to deal with the issues and sort them out. Today, we have before us an unfortunate set of examples of the sort of issues whose treatment requires that degree of seniority.
	I shall not rehearse all the arguments that have been elegantly and well rehearsed by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House about the so-called Henry VIII clauses in the Bill. I will, however, agree with those who say that Henry VIII is getting a very unfair press. I think that calling them Stalin clauses would sum them up better, but then I regard Henry VIII as one of England's first and leading Eurosceptics. After all, he brought back from Rome amazing powers to govern affairs in this country and proceeded in an entirely democratic way, with everything done through major legislation in the House of Commons, properly debated in the style of the day, and very good I am sure the debate was. I hold no brief for what he did to his wives and I do not hope to emulate him in that respect, but—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will now address his remarks to the Second Reading of the Bill.

John Redwood: I accept your reproof in good spirit, Madam Deputy Speaker. Yes, I will.
	The issue I wish to raise is not the powers in the Bill, although we need to reach a conclusion on that, but whether the Bill—as suitably amended, perhaps—will tackle the Government's underlying problem. Will it help the Government to deregulate—will it help them to deal with the many clogs in the arteries of business and commerce that the Prime Minister himself has identified? Many months have passed since the Prime Minister made a brilliant speech on deregulation, full of admirable sentiments and analysis—a speech that I would have been proud to have made. The Prime Minister has a big advantage over me in that he is the Prime Minister and he can do more than make speeches; he can actually implement measures. He can make change happen in the Government that he leads—when he is leading it, that is. Since that speech was made, however, we have seen nothing to back up the fine words.
	The Prime Minister has told us that, for every new regulation introduced, one would be removed—a crude device that would allow the Government to introduce a big and expensive regulation while removing a cheap and ineffective one, but it would be better than nothing. What has happened since the Prime Minister opined? About 4,000 new regulations have been introduced and almost none has been struck off. It is not working. Since the Prime Minister made his speech in support of better and more sensitive regulation, we have seen no such development—there has been no abolition of quangos, no reduction in the intrusiveness of the regulators and no measures have been brought to the House for repeal.
	The wide powers in the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 that we were told would be used to achieve that aim have not been so used. A mere 27 measures have been subjected to them and even the Under-Secretary was hard pressed to remember any of them or to claim that anything good had happened as a result. People outside are not saying, "Oh, I'm so grateful for the 2001 Act—my life has been transformed and great swathes of regulation that I used to have to slave under have been removed." Nothing memorable has happened.
	The Under-Secretary made a promising start to his speech. He honestly stated that he had inherited the 2001 Act, which clearly has not been working well—we might be less flattering and say that it has not worked at all—and his analysis suggested that the 2001 Act lacked sufficient teeth, so he was introducing today a Bill with more teeth. The House pointed out two problems with his argument: first, the Bill does not actually state that the powers will be used for deregulation—they could be used for extra regulation—and, secondly, there are some democratic affronts in the proposals. His defence was interesting. He said that there were more protections in the Bill than there were in the 2001 Act. If that is the case, how can the Under-Secretary claim that the Bill will solve the problem of the 2001 Act which, he established, lacked teeth, was too democratic, too cautiously worded and did not allow Ministers to operate without parliamentary control and oversight? We should repeat the big question for the Treasury Bench in the hope that the Under-Secretary can provide an answer. If these new large powers are given to Ministers how will they be used in the next couple of years, and what is their programme? What do Ministers want to strike off the statute book, and what do they wish to amend or refine, using the powers that could not be done under the 2001 Act or by introducing straightforward primary legislation in the House?
	The Under-Secretary was wrong to suggest that I bind my Front-Bench spokesmen and speak for them. As chairman of the policy review, I am not a member of the Front-Bench team and I am not governed by collective responsibility, but I believe that I speak for my right hon. and hon. Friends when I say that, if the Under-Secretary has a good list of things that he would like to repeal, we would be happy to expedite their passage through the House using the usual procedures. If he wished to introduce a deregulation Bill or a repeals Bill—I can see that my hon. Friends are excited by that prospect, for which we have been waiting for eight years—I am sure that we would expedite the passage of such measures. It would be possible with the agreement of the usual channels to introduce a Bill that would not need very much scrutiny at all because we would be happy with the measures that it contained. Such a Bill could then proceed using the correct procedures.
	Whenever I make the case for deregulation, Labour Back Benchers and sometimes Ministers intervene to ask what specifically I would do, hoping that that is the knockout question. They know that when I was shadow Secretary of State for deregulation in the previous shadow Cabinet, I drew up a list of 53 items that we wish to deregulate, in primary legislation where necessary, including some very significant items indeed. I have sent them on several occasions to ministerial and regulatory offices—they never seem to remember them—and whenever I am asked what exactly I would deregulate, those proposals remain on the table. The list will not be the same at the next general election, as my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Front-Bench team will compile a list suitable for the circumstances of 2009 or 2010. It will probably be much longer, as many more things will have been put on to the statute book in the meantime by the Government that we will consider unnecessary or undesirable.
	It is useful, however, to consider whether one or two things could be achieved by using proposals in the Bill or by using more direct means. First, only in the United Kingdom have we managed money-laundering regulations in such a cack-handed and clumsy way that people who want to deposit a couple of hundred pounds in a building society or a bank have to take their gas bill, their passport, their driving licence, and testimonials from their neighbours to prove that the money was not obtained illicitly. I cannot for the life of me understand how taking a gas bill to the bank proves that one's money was not obtained illicitly, but apparently it provides protection. I cannot understand how possession of a gas bill proves conclusively that someone lives at an address all the time or that they are an upright member of the community. I think that that should be established in different ways, and it would be better established by the appropriate authorities when there are grounds to suspect someone. That is a better method than making my constituents take all those ridiculous bits of paper to the bank. Often the bank manager or clerk knows exactly who the applicant is, but they still have to go through the rigmarole of asking for those bits of paper. Could that not be sorted out?
	Why do we regulate venture capital at all? If we want a flourishing and dynamic economy, the venture capital industry is quite capable of carrying out its affairs business to business without any regulatory intervention. We should deregulate venture capital and take it out of the net.
	Why do we need to regulate business to business transactions in financial services? We have a great City of London, but people tell me now that it is getting too regulated and quite a lot of the best innovation in the City of London now is available for markets outside Britain but not for the British marketplace, for the simple reason that there is too much regulatory hassle to go through to get the new idea agreed, and further elaborate restrictions on sale, offer and advertisement. Would it not be possible for Ministers to decide that we do not need to regulate business to business, professional to professional transactions in financial services, and exempt them from all the current regulatory hassle?
	Why do we need regulation on data protection? This was not on the original list of 63 items that the official Opposition sponsored, but we have a clumsy system of data protection. It is one of the bigger burdens mentioned in the list referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) in his opening remarks—over £5.5 billion of compliance, and I do not see that it necessarily offers the protection that the Government have in mind.
	When one looks at the impact of regulation, one often finds that it does not protect the data against abuse by criminals and potential criminals and it does not necessarily inform the public, but it represents a very large burden indeed. How many times have hon. Members tried to use data protection and freedom of information to find out legitimate things from the Government only to find that, under existing legislation, there are ways to block that legitimate inquiry and stifle one's appetite for information? Data protection certainly needs a haircut, even if the Government do not want to go as far as reducing it entirely. It seems a disproportionately expensive and complex machine for a rather limited goal.
	If we look at EU regulations, we see marvellous examples of the legislative pen working overtime. It is one of the great pities of both the Brussels government machine and of the British government machine that they are so inefficient at doing all the things a Government ought to be doing, apart from legislating, where they seem to be highly productive and capable of churning out large amounts of regulation and law.
	Built into the EU system is the idea of the presidency. The new country assuming the presidency of the Community for six months is always told by astute officials in Brussels that its presidency will be judged by how much new regulation it manages to get on the statute book. Each one is given a suitable challenge, sometimes pandering to its inclinations, so the British presidency would be told that some measure was market-opening and a French presidency would be told that a measure was market-closing, and they would be encouraged to go about the business of trying to get it through. Sometimes the Commission has an even better sense of humour, as in the case of the last British presidency, where it set them ridiculous things to do, like giving away the British rebate, and—surprise, surprise—the British Government fell for it. One could not make it up.
	The idea of the presidency is used to make sure there is more regulation than we need. The British Government are always telling us they are leaders in Europe, so why can they not find a way of saying to colleague members of the European Union that maybe we have enough European law now, or that if we want a little more European law, perhaps we should take some off first, to make room for it?

Peter Bone: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments recently reviewed European legislation and found that many European directives were so badly drafted that, if it had been domestic legislation, it would have been rejected and sent back to the Department? The Government must impose penalties as required by EU legislation, but the instruments are often so badly drafted that business does not know whether it has complied.

John Redwood: My hon. Friend has put his finger on an important problem. I remember when I was a Minister cursed with the task of transposing such directives into national law. On one occasion, I was so frustrated by what I thought was the over-regulatory nature of our draft—it was something like a 100-page draft to implement a 10-page directive—that I said, "Let's just implement the directive as it stands, because it is clearly less onerous than the civil service draft we have come up with. I then received extremely strong and pompous legal advice—I suppose that I am not meant to reveal this, so I shall call it non-legal advice—the burden of which was that it was wrong to make the directive the law in Britain, because it was so badly drafted that we could face infraction proceedings. It was apparently seen to be the task of British civil servants to try to make good law out of bad and to ensure that it fitted into our British legal codes.

Oliver Heald: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one problem is that, once European law is implemented in a member state, there is not a proper process for reporting back to Europe—the Commission and the Council of Ministers—that the regulation does not work on the ground, that it is appallingly badly thought through and that it needs reform? Does he have any thoughts on how the process might become more two way?

John Redwood: That is where British leadership could come in. We should try to persuade like-minded member states and in due course the Commission that the European Union needs a way of death for bad legislation, just as surely as it has an effective way of birth for new legislation. It would be better if we paused for reflection and had a year with no new legislation in the EU, other than perhaps amendments to existing EU regulations where they are not working. A period of reflection would create more space and allow the removal of some of the unnecessary burdens.
	The Under-Secretary began the debate by saying that the problem is not hugely serious, because Britain is still high up the competitiveness league. As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire pointed out, we have slipped from fourth to 13th in less than a decade since this Government came to power. Ministers should be very worried about that—in some rankings, we are down at No. 22. I do not want my country to settle for being 13th or 22nd, because if one is 13th or 22nd, one does not even get on the list of locations when people decide where to put a new car plant or steelworks. There is a lot of chunky, footloose investment around the world, of which Britain used to get more than its fair share because it was more competitive than other countries. Over the coming months and years, Britain's share will fade, because we have slipped too far down the competitiveness league. The subject of today's debate—too many clumsily enforced regulations—is one reason why we have slipped down the competitiveness league, and we need legislation to tackle that important issue.
	The Bill is silent on tax regulations. We need a method of reforming our tax codes and reducing the burden of some of our taxes, which would contribute to restoring competitiveness. The famous IR35 was an attack on self-employed people, particularly in the computer industry, and it did a lot of damage: some people gave up, while others were driven offshore. Why have the Government not done something about that decision, which should be reversed? If the Bill is not amended, it cannot be used to achieve that result, because it does not involve tax.
	Why have the Government not done something about the deferment of national insurance? If my constituents have more than one employment and if their situation has not changed, they must go through an elaborate administrative ritual every year of tabling information in order to get so-called deferment, whereas in practice they do not have to pay any extra national insurance if their main employment involves paying the full amount under the law as it stands. Why do they have to go through that complicated administrative ritual? That is a little example, and there are hundreds more throughout our tax codes.
	The Conservative party would like to see substantial deregulation of local government, because there has been too much centralisation and too many burdens have been placed on it. We would love to see the fair value and comprehensive performance assessment regimes scrapped in their entirety. We have taken outside advice on the matter, which has told us that that would save £1 billion. That money could either be returned to council tax payers at a time when they are not getting good value for money and are paying too much or—this would be a choice for elected councillors—it could be ploughed into front-line services to strengthen any areas in which they are deficient. The Government could use the Bill as a vehicle to change the rules affecting local government.
	Regulations bear down much more heavily on small businesses than on large businesses—naturally, because large businesses can afford the extra cost of compliance workers and specialists who can lobby Government to try to move regulation in the direction that they wish, and then to employ specialists to avoid the worst of the impact of the regulation when it is in place. Small businesses do not have that luxury. In a small business employing five or 10 people, the one or two people at the top do not have time to lobby Governments to try to move things in their direction; they scarcely have time to implement regulations fully and often have to spend a lot of money on expensive outside consultants to tell them what they mean and what they have to do to get up to speed. We heard the estimate—it was a good guess—that regulations effectively cost a small business five times as much as a big business because of the impact on its fragile cost structures and stretched management resources.
	We should institute a review of all the small business exemptions with a view to levelling them up so that more businesses can be taken out of the scope of many of these regulations. We will then have more small businesses and more jobs, with all the associated benefits.
	The issues before the House are straightforward. I get the feeling that there is agreement across the parties, and on the Treasury Bench, that we need to deregulate because there are too many unnecessary regulations, and that while some may be desirable, the costs are not proportionate to the beneficial consequences. I would add that many regulations achieve precisely the opposite of what they set out to achieve. If we had a system of review, as many Members would like, more of that would become obvious, and the case for removing or amending the harmful regulations would, in turn, be more obvious.
	We would welcome a Bill that made it easier to cut the burdens and to repeal regulations that are having unfortunate consequences. This Bill, however, allows the Government to re-regulate without reference to the House in a way that is the opposite of deregulation. Given that Ministers have failed to provide clear examples of how they are going to use these powers, I fear that they will find among Labour Members, as well as elsewhere, that it is difficult to make the case for the Bill as it stands.
	I have given a few ideas out of my list of 63—I will not bore the House with the whole list, but Ministers have it—of regulations that could be stripped out to the benefit of this country's economy, leading to the creation of more jobs, an improvement of our competitive position, and a lightening of the burden on many individuals who are frustrated by heavy-handed and excessive regulation.
	Will Ministers listen and come up with a practical programme? Will they understand that grandstanding with these rather crude bits of legislation is not the same as running a deregulation programme? Can we soon have a Cabinet Minister who means business and cuts through the jungle?

Stephen Hammond: I am honoured to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who has spoken about deregulation in some depth. The Bill has two significances—the regulatory significance and the parliamentary constitutional significance. The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) said he hoped for a Queen's Speech that contained no regulation. If he had looked at last year's speech, he would see something far from that—it committed the Government to promoting efficiency, productivity and value for money, but also said that legislation would be introduced to streamline regulatory structures. That phrase should concern us all.
	When I made my maiden speech in this House, I mentioned the need for a bonfire of regulations, so it was with unbridled joy that I found myself put on to the Select Committee on Regulatory Reform, assuming it to be a Committee where we would discuss, among other things, deregulation. At my first meeting in July, Members can imagine my disappointment when I was told by the Chairman that we were allowed only to look at anything enacted by the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 and that deregulation was not part of our remit. My initial hopes were immediately dashed.
	We must be pretty cautious about the confidence that we can have in this Bill. Can we have more confidence in the Bill than in the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, which clearly failed to stem the tide of regulation that has become a Government hallmark? The Bill's intention may be laudable, but it must be accompanied by a step change in the Administration's culture and attitude. We need a determined effort to shake off the Government's tendency to interfere, regulate and inspect every element of business activity. I acknowledge the need for protection, but it must be balanced by the need for deregulation.
	The Government set up a Better Regulation Task Force, a Better Regulation Executive and a Better Regulation Commission. They have as gargantuan an appetite for creating quangos as for creating regulation, but do they have an appetite for deregulation? The Bill may or may not be a step in the right direction, but does it take that radical step away from the regulation culture and provide for the deregulation that British business needs?
	Concerns about part 1 have already been expressed and I want to mention briefly my exchanges with the Under-Secretary in the Regulatory Reform Committee. Part 1 contains enabling powers for Ministers, by order, to reform legislation or implement the Law Commission's recommendations. No one would argue with the Bill's stated ambition to improve the current regulatory reform order system or to deliver non-controversial proposals for simplification. It is implicit that simplification might lead to substantive changes.
	When the Under-Secretary gave evidence to the Select Committee, he used the example of data sharing between Departments. Although not specified, there is an implication of additional powers to amend primary legislation, not deregulation. In the past, Acts have included gateway provisions so that information and data sharing could be done in a way approved by Parliament. Why, therefore, should we should extend the regulatory reform orders procedure in the circumstances that we are considering? The answer lies in the point that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Alison Seabeck) made—it revolves around the definition of "controversial".
	When the Under-Secretary gave evidence to the Select Committee, he mentioned safeguards. Does the Bill include anything that allows us to distinguish between common sense and controversial? In the Select Committee, he discussed not only "controversial" but "highly controversial" as well as "common sense". I made the point that one man's definition of controversial or even highly controversial is another man's definition of common sense. I want to ensure that the distinction is capable of assessment, tightly drawn and in the Bill.
	Clause 2 states that orders can amend, replace or repeal any legislation. The explanatory notes state:
	"'Replace' means that legislation may be repealed by an order made under clause 1 and may be replaced by free-standing provision in the order."
	That is clear, if somewhat worrying. However, in evidence to the Select Committee, the Under-Secretary said something different. He stated:
	"This Bill would intend to create a relatively quick method of simplifying, restating or correcting errors."
	"Restate" and "replace" are not the same. "Restate" implies powers to clarify legislation; it does not necessarily mean altering the substance. The explanatory notes imply one thing, but the evidence given elsewhere suggests that the Under-Secretary intended another.
	We all understand the Government's wish to correct errors and omissions, but there is a worry that the Bill may lead to more poor quality legislation without proper scrutiny. There seems to be little in the Bill to protect us from that. Clause 2 will widen that scope and go a long way towards giving Ministers the general power to repeal and amend primary legislation. Like many other hon. Members, I want the Minister to reassure us that there will be a distinction between restatement and replacement, and that the tests that set out the confines of his ministerial power will in the Bill and will have substantial effect.
	I questioned the Minister in some depth in the Select Committee about the effects of clauses 13, 14, 15 and 16, and particularly about whether the 60-days provision was really necessary. He said that the Government had consulted with business and that 60 days might not be proportionate for considering all regulatory reform orders—RROs. I take his point, but I hope that he takes the point made at that time that the reason for the 60-day examination period was to give the House the chance to undertake proper parliamentary scrutiny of the orders. Not all the proposed procedures will allow that length of parliamentary scrutiny or, indeed, enough scrutiny at all. Many of the delays involved with RROs have nothing to do with the Committee or the parliamentary scrutiny stages. They are often caused by Departments being unable to go through the consultation stage with stakeholders beforehand or to marshal the information that is needed to go into the legislation. Indeed, the bulk of the delay is a result of those factors, rather than of the parliamentary scrutiny.
	The Minister spoke earlier about the Hampton report. Part 1 of the Bill will allow the Government to push forward some of the recommendations in that report—including the subsuming of the 31 national regulators into about seven—where that is not already being done under separate legislation. I have some concerns about that. The reduction from 31 to seven will consolidate the bodies involved, but it might not necessarily involve deregulating or getting rid of regulation. I would like reassurance that that reduction will bring about a major sense of deregulation. Super-regulators are no better than small regulators—they can still mean more regulation and they certainly do not guarantee a light touch. The great danger is that they are less responsive and more unwieldy, and they certainly do not listen to the needs of an industry or a sector.

Henry Bellingham: I hope that my hon. Friend will consider the case of the Financial Services Authority, which brought into it a number of different regulators. Far from offering a light touch and more efficiency, it grew into a massive empire that has caused many more problems for the vital financial services of this country.

Stephen Hammond: My hon. Friend's intervention is rather timely. As some hon. Members will know, the financial services were my trade before I came to the House. There were two amusing things about the Financial Services Authority: it instituted a huge amount of extra legislation across the City, including money laundering legislation, and it failed to produce any protection for people making the biggest transaction of their lives, namely, taking out a mortgage. It instigated huge amounts of regulation of, and interference in, the business-to-business sector, but none at all to protect people undertaking their biggest financial transaction.
	Part 1 of the Bill gives me major concern, so I hope that the Minister will tell us what safeguards he intends to incorporate into it. More importantly, I hope that he will use the Bill—after it has been heavily amended—to deregulate rather than to regulate.

David Howarth: I want to speak about part 1 and confine my remarks to the constitutional aspects of the Bill. This seems to me to be extraordinary legislation. It proposes changes to the legislative process that in any other country in Europe, and perhaps in the world, would require a constitutional amendment. That is one of the reasons that part 1 has to be taken on the Floor of the House.
	Obviously, I welcome, as we all do, the Minister's assurances that his test of whether something is controversial or highly controversial, and the mechanism of the Committee veto, will offer extra safeguards, but the problems are clear with those two safeguards. There is at the moment no definition of "controversy" in the Bill and the Committee majority mechanism does not deal with the controversy point. It is possible for a matter to be highly controversial with only a minority of members. A Committee could easily decide in favour of taking the order through the procedure introduced by the Bill, even though the matter was highly controversial in other parts of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) mentioned the fact that matters could be controversial for Back Benchers but not necessarily for the Front Benchers of the main parties. Therefore, as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Alison Seabeck) said, there needs to be some extra safeguards, including subject matter safeguards.
	May I suggest one other possible mechanism: the mechanism of call-in, whereby a certain number of Members—any Members, perhaps 50 or 70—could call in a decision so that it could not go through the procedure laid down in the Bill, but had to go through full legislative scrutiny?I make that suggestion for another reason. One aspect of the Bill that seems quite disturbing is that it allows not just the addition of new crimes, with up to two years imprisonment or a level 5 fine, but it allows the Government to use the procedure to undertake structural change. Often, legislation does not regulate or add crimes, but sets up bodies and gives them powers. Among those bodies are, of course, local authorities. It strikes me that under the Bill as presently drafted, structural and functional reform of local government could be achieved without proper legislative scrutiny. Therefore, simply through using that mechanism, the balance of the constitution itself between local and central Government could be changed.
	The Government will say, "Would that not be controversial?" That comes back to the point about the weakness of that test. Even the structure of the courts could be changed because they are no longer a matter of common law; they are a matter of statute. Any creature of statute, which technically includes any company, could be changed by these provisions.

Rob Marris: Not the Hudson's Bay Company.

David Howarth: Not common law companies, but almost any other body could be.
	The Minister has dealt with questions about changes to the Terrorism Bill, bringing back the 90 days detention without trial and the rights of defendants being changed. He says that, obviously, those are highly controversial, and they are, but the questions remain not just about fundamental rights, but about the structure of the constitution itself, which the Bill appears to allow to be changed.
	My view and that of, I think, many hon. Members is that one makes constitutional change not on the basis of the powers that one would want for oneself, but on the basis of the powers that one would want one's political opponents, indeed one's political enemies, to have. I am sure that on that basis the Bill should not proceed. The safeguards are very weak. Those in clause 3 are weak legally because they are expressed in a subjective way—it is a matter of the Minister being satisfied as to whether the various conditions have been fulfilled. In the view of many constitutional experts, that is not enough.
	I mentioned in an intervention that many Law Commission matters are controversial and political, not just technical. I agree with the Minister, however, that it is a shame that a large number of Law Commission Bills and sensible and rational reform proposals still lie on the shelf. Perhaps the reason for that is that the Government have been overactive in bringing forward their own Bills. More importantly, recent Parliaments have not had many fifth years. Traditionally, Law Commission Bills were used to fill the fifth year of a Parliament when the Government had run out of things to pass laws about. I agree, however, that a better system is necessary to pass Law Commission Bills, but it is not necessary to combine that with a proposal in part 1 of the Bill that is a constitutional danger.
	Many other Members have mentioned the fundamental objections, but I have one more point on the question of deliberation and discussion. My reaction against the Bill was mainly prompted by thinking about what the Government really believe about the value of discussion. The Bill achieves a reduction in discussion from that for full primary legislation to one of the procedures used for secondary legislation. As a new Member, it struck me that our function is more than just voting. One of our functions is to deliberate and discuss, and to influence the Government's thinking.
	The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) was sceptical as to whether the way in which we do that now is the best way. That does not mean, however, that what we do now is lacking in value. I think that it has great value. I think that discussion is a fundamental part of democracy. The Government think so, too—I have sat through Report stages of Bills in which the Government have brought forward a great number of amendments, many of which refer back to discussion on Second Reading or in Committee. I have even witnessed my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome have an amendment accepted at Report stage of the Criminal Defence Service Bill. Therefore, discussion does matter, and it does work.
	The procedure proposed in the Bill is one under which amendment is impossible. The proposals can be changed by the Government, but there is no procedure to amend a statutory instrument in the course of its discussion by Parliament. It therefore misses out on all the creative advantages of discussion—the Government do not always have all the answers or all the possible points of view; like we all do, they have a limited capacity to imagine what problems there might be.

Rob Marris: As someone who, I think, holds the all-comers record, with 45 Back-Bench amendments accepted to a Government Bill on one occasion, let me remind the hon. Gentleman that the Minister said in his opening remarks that draft regulations would be put before the House. The hon. Gentleman is right that, unfortunately, statutory instruments are not amendable under our current procedures, but draft regulations could be discussed. Would he like to see, as I would, a provision for draft regulations to be put before the House in advance of being included in the Bill?

David Howarth: Indeed, that would be an improvement. Of course, the disadvantage with draft regulations is that to amend them, we must start again. Under certain scenarios, following the procedure under the Bill would be slower than passing primary legislation. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman is correct that such a procedure would be an improvement.
	The Minister, in his opening remarks, said that one of the safeguards would be that there would be a lot of "consultation with stakeholders"—to use that horrible phrase. I do not think that that is enough. The difference between consultation and discussion and deliberation in the Chamber is that consultation does not include any element of challenge, of "back and forth". Consultation means that someone receives information without having to talk back to those who are being consulted, and is not normally challenged by them. That is the main advantage of discussion—it is creative and produces new proposals. There is a more fundamental advantage, however. Discussion and deliberation in public is part of democracy itself. The more public discussion there is, the more the Government are held to account.
	The Government need reasons for their proposals that they can discuss in public—reasons that go beyond their own narrow interest. Rather than giving reasons that apply only to members of the governing party, they must give reasons in the House that are intended to persuade, and to attract support across the political spectrum. In fact, that is precisely what the Minister tried to do this afternoon. It was a very good example of how discussion in Parliament is in itself an important part of the democratic process. The embarrassment that Ministers sometimes feel when they do not have good reasons for their proposals—reasons that they can explain to others—is a constraint that favours the democratic ideal. Academics sometimes call the process the "civilising force of hypocrisy".
	Part 1 of the Bill is entirely unsatisfactory. Like many other Members, I hope that radical amendments will be tabled in Committee and on Report. I should like at least to feel that there is some vestigial sense of the separation of powers—that there is a difference between Parliament and Ministers. I have winced on a couple of occasions when Secretaries of State at the Dispatch Box have answered questions by saying, in effect, "I will legislate". No, they will not legislate; we will legislate. I hope that that will remain the case in future, and that on Third Reading those of us who object to the Bill in its current form will be able to support it.

Douglas Carswell: It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) and, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), whose eloquence was such that there is probably not a great deal for me to add.
	Who could possibly oppose a Bill that is intended to reduce unnecessary regulation? Who could possibly oppose a Bill that is intended to cut red tape for business, the public sector and voluntary organisations? In my constituency, I see the impact of over-regulation on small businesses and charities all the time. When we look at Britain as a whole, it is possible to see the damage that over-regulation does to us as a country and an economy.
	As others have pointed out, we have slipped down the international league of competitiveness, from fourth place in 1997 to 13th in 2005. Superficially the Bill makes a great deal of sense, but behind the headlines it is not all that it seems. If it did what it says on the tin, I would support it wholeheartedly, but it does not, so I will not.
	Part 1 enables Ministers to reform legislation or implement recommendations of the Law Commission by order. Law would, in effect, be made without reference to democratically elected parliamentarians. There would be a further extension of the power of a remote Executive and unaccountable national regulators. Merging regulators does not lead to less regulation. It was Max Weber who said as early as the 19th century that bureaucracy has an inherent tendency to expand. Bureaucracy tries to assume new powers, and to aggrandise itself. A merging of regulators could simply create new super-regulators, hungry for yet more power and more prone to regulate. I am concerned that part 1 will be a further step away from proper parliamentary scrutiny. It appears to empower the Executive, but in reality it will empower senior civil servants and those bureaucrats and regulators already beyond meaningful parliamentary accountability.
	In the past 30 years, we have seen a steady erosion of representative parliamentary government. Behind the fac"ade of a functioning parliamentary democracy is an increasingly post-representative system of government. In almost every sphere—financial service regulation, food standards, environmental protection—it is remote quangos, not parliamentarians, that increasingly call the shots. Remote elites make the decisions; local people take the rap; no one is accountable; no one gets sacked: this is how we are governed today. I fear that this Bill is not so much anti-regulation as anti-democratic.
	Speaking as someone who could be characterised as slightly sceptical about the European project, part 3 of the Bill leaves me somewhat suspicious. Not for the first time, measures are being introduced in the name of streamlining, but I fear that they may turn out to be a power-grab. European law is currently introduced into this country through regulation. This Bill could enable Brussels diktats to be brought in through schemes and rules. What does that mean? Yesterday in this House, one Member spoke about the European Union achieving the so-called Lisbon agenda. Remember that? It was about deregulating in order to make Europe competitive. Reference was made at the time to making Europe the most competitive economy in the world. That may seem absurd now. Easing EU institutions' ability to make our laws for us will only exacerbate the Euro-sclerosis afflicting that tired old continent. Easing such ability will only tie us closer to those worn-out EU economies; it will only place us more firmly in Europe's economic sarcophagus.
	I welcome the Regulatory Reform Committee's acknowledgement that, far from being about deregulation and tidying up, this Bill
	"has the potential to be the most constitutionally significant Bill that has been brought before Parliament for some years."
	I welcome the recognition that the driving force behind it is the Cabinet Office and, perhaps, senior civil servants. It could become a bureaucrats' charter: it could allow them to avoid the messy and unpredictable business of having their measures scrutinised by the people's elected representatives. Yes, Minister, this Bill could be Sir Humphrey's dream come true. The Minister would be able to amend, repeal and replace primary and secondary legislation without reference to this House.
	It was Walter Bagehot who said in the 19th century that the Crown had ceased to be part of what he called the efficient part of the constitution and had become the dignified part. By that, he meant that it had the trappings of power, but not the reality. My fear is that although this democratically elected Parliament has the trappings of power here in our ornate Chamber, real power is increasingly moving elsewhere. This Bill will only exacerbate that process.

Jonathan Djanogly: This has been a very interesting debate and the value and weight of the contributions, from all parts of the House, has been significant. I hope that, as a result, the Minister has had a taste of where Members are coming from on this Bill. The ability to deliver more regulatory reforms quickly and efficiently should be good news for business. Given that more than 3,800 new regulations are created every year, British business needs some good news. According to the Cabinet Office, since 2001 27 regulatory reform orders have been made. As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) said, this does not seem a particularly large number of RROs given their impact, nor given the thousands of regulations that have been created since then. Indeed, the Government anticipated that 60 RROs would be made when the original Bill was going through Parliament in 2001.
	The Conservative party has argued consistently and strenuously for serious deregulatory policies, and we agree with the concerns expressed by the director general of the CBI, who said that British business had a £30-billion millstone around its neck. The burden of regulation was a subject expanded on strongly by my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and for Harwich (Mr. Carswell). The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), and even some Labour Back-Benchers, such as the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor), also recognised the size of the problem.
	Productivity underpins strong economic performance and sustained increases in living standards. According to the Federation of Small Businesses, the people who run small businesses are forced to spend 200 per cent. longer on managing regulation—or up to 10 hours extra a week—under Labour.
	We over-regulate at our peril. The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) took that further, and said that too much legislation can, by itself, lead to bad law and weak scrutiny of law.

John Redwood: Was my hon. Friend stunned, as I was, by the Minister's proposition that we could have 1 per cent. per annum more growth if we took deregulation seriously? That would amount to more than £10 billion extra being added to our national income, out of which an extra £4 billion could be devoted to public services. Would that not be good news?

Jonathan Djanogly: It would be superb news for Great Britain plc. However, given that the Minister said that, one has to wonder why the Government have not taken the matter seriously up to now.
	The Hampton review found that there are some 63 national regulators, which perform at least 600,000 inspections and send 2.5 million forms to businesses each year. We over-regulate when we do not understand or trust business. The Conservative party believes that businesses and markets have responsibilities to staff, customers and to wider society. However, we also believe that we must trust business and business people enough to allow them to flourish and provide the growth and prosperity that our society depends on to protect and enhance our way of life.

Rob Marris: I caution the hon. Gentleman about trusting business. By 2010, 10,000 people each year will die from asbestos-related diseases because some idiots—a lot of them members of the Conservative party—trusted business about the use of asbestos.

Jonathan Djanogly: The intellectual paucity of that remark is such that I shall not even respond to it.
	After much talk on deregulation, the Government must deliver, and companies must see that delivery and start to feel tangible benefits for their businesses and the economy. In his opening remarks, the Minister said that the Bill aims to deliver better regulation, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham was right to ask how it could do so when it contains nothing that relates directly to deregulation.
	We remain concerned that the Bill does not do enough to reduce regulation or create the light-touch deregulatory culture in Whitehall that is so needed. In addition, we are worried about the constitutional problems that it raises. That concern was shared by many hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) and the hon. Members for Cannock Chase, for Plymouth, Devonport (Alison Seabeck), for Somerton and Frome and for Cambridge (David Howarth), as well as my hon. Friends the Members for Harwich and for Christchurch, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham. Indeed, the hon. Member for Cambridge went further and said that the importance of the constitutional issue was such that it should be reviewed and debated on the Floor of the House. We agree, and hope that the Government will make a positive response to that point.
	Part 1 of the Bill supersedes the RRO provisions in the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, and gives the Government wide powers to reform legislation and implement recommendations from the Law Commissioners. According to the Regulatory Reform Committee's report published on 31 January—I congratulate the Committee on a thorough piece of work—part 1 is explicitly less focused on regulation than the 2001 Act. There is nothing in the Bill that requires orders to have a deregulatory element. Despite the assurance that the Committee says it needs fully to support the Bill, the so-called safeguards are—according to the report—dwarfed when set against the increased powers that the Bill will provide to Ministers. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch elaborated fluently on that theme. I also agree with the comments by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome that if something looks too good to be true, it probably is. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), a member of the Committee, made a similar point.
	We should be aware of the recommendations of the Committee. In particular, it noted that as a matter of urgency the Cabinet Office should retrospectively assess the estimates, costs and benefits that have previously been submitted to the House for each regulatory reform order, with a view to establishing whether the estimated savings have been realised. Several hon. Members also noted that the breadth of powers granted could be used in areas that are politically sensitive, not least in relation to the use of criminal penalties. That is an issue that will have to be addressed carefully in Committee. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said that part 1 is unacceptable as it stands, and we agree.
	Part 2 introduces statutory principles of good regulation which are to be used to inform a code of practice to which specified regulations must have regard. Although we welcome that, we have explained today the need to go much further to create the sort of light touch regulation business needs and to address the concerns that my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon expressed about super-regulators.
	Part 3 relates to legislation emanating from the EU. We have said that we support the idea of making it easier for UK institutions to deal with EU legislation, but—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham and my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich asked—how will that actually work? As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire asked, what are the rules and schemes for EU law referred to in the Bill? We need to know.
	The Bill has a striking resemblance to parts of other Bills before this House and the other place. Those need to be looked at in context to highlight the growing constitutional trend away from primary legislation. The Company Law Reform Bill and the Government of Wales Bill both include a similar means of introducing orders through forms of delegated legislation. Part 31 of the Company Law Reform Bill is described in its explanatory notes as
	"a new power to reform company law by means of a special form of secondary legislation."
	It constitutes a significant change to legislation and was described by Lord Freeman on Second Reading in the other place as "a parliamentary outrage". He then quoted the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee to strike out part 31. While those observations are in the context of the Company Law Reform Bill, they tackle many of the same questions of delegated legislation that arise in the Bill before us.
	The procedure proposed in part 31 of the Company Law Reform Bill is similar, but not identical to that proposed for regulatory reform orders. The document to be laid before Parliament, for example, is broadly the equivalent of the statement that is to be laid under regulatory reform orders. Although there are procedural differences, part 31 orders are comparable to clause 16 super-affirmative resolution procedure regulatory reform orders. Is the Department for Trade and Industry not talking to the Cabinet Office? For instance, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee concluded that the existing regulatory reform order procedure is not suitable for large and controversial measures, such as those that may be the subject of part 31 orders. Will the Minister explain when it will be acceptable to use one or the other order? It is bizarre that the Government should introduce three similar but varying super-statutory instrument regimes at the same time. That could cause confusion and conflicting procedures. How does the Minister reconcile that? I would be grateful if he could write to me explaining the rationale behind that very important issue.
	Despite the undeniable crossover between the three sets of orders that come from such legislation, we need significantly to increase accountability in any event, as the right hon. Member for Swansea, West said, so that the Bill can be used to control a huge increase in Executive power. That could include limiting the orders to deregulation matters and then to genuinely minor and uncontroversial matters, with veto provisions either in the Bill or perhaps in Standing Orders—we have yet to debate that—while recognising the complexities that were noted by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon. It could also include increasing the period allowed for parliamentary consideration, or reducing the subjective ministerial aspect of decision making.
	As the hon. Member for Cannock Chase said, those powers could include determining whether an order or primary legislation is appropriate in the first place, or whether to use a mandatory majority or unanimous votes in the relevant Select Committees of either or both Houses, as my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke) suggested. They could include inserting retrospective scrutiny, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome. To answer the questions on delivery, quite rightly posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham, they could even include creating a body similar to the proposed company law and reporting commission to review law and conduct independent consultation and propose changes likely to be implemented by order. So there will be much to consider in Committee.
	Although we acknowledge the Minister's hope to reduce unnecessary red tape and burdens on business, the public sector and voluntary organisations, we want assurances from the Government that that will happen with the Bill. Proper protections are needed in determining whether regulations are necessary in the circumstances, and we remain concerned about the breadth of the order-making powers that the Bill confers. It is vital to review how the Bill will work in practice, which is why we shall request that a sunset clause be inserted. The Bill is of major constitutional significance in changing the way that legislation is processed, taking the onus away from Parliament and directing it to Ministers and Whitehall, so it will be fully reviewed by us in Committee and reconsidered as a whole during its later stages.

Jim Murphy: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall respond to the debate and in doing so, it is quite proper to mention that we have had thoughtful contributions from a very large number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Alison Seabeck), the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), the hon. Members for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), and the hon. Members for Cambridge (David Howarth), for Harwich (Mr. Carswell) and, of course, for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly).
	In an interesting debate, we have heard about a captain from 1954, about a major, about Tarzan and repeatedly about Henry VIII, and we have heard from a Vulcan. I obviously apologise to the right hon. Member for Wokingham for referring to him as a Front Bencher, but I am surprised that the new Tory leader could not find a place in his Front-Bench team of 84 for him to serve. Understandably, we heard apologies on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Regulatory Reform, who has had to attend the funeral of Mr. Fred Venables—a local community activist and citizen. Of course, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, who speaks for the Liberals, had to catch a train.
	The hon. Member for Huntingdon said that business needs some good news. Of course, he is right. Of course, we cannot be complacent, but business has already had a lot of good news. The UK is the No. 1 destination for inward investment in the EU. Employment in the UK is 2.1 million higher than in 1997. The UK's gross domestic product has grown for more than 50 successive quarters. We have the lowest corporation tax, and small businesses are zero rated. Of course, that is a far cry from the 10 per cent. interest rate for four years and the 15 per cent. interest rate for a year, 3 million unemployed and 1,000 businesses going bust every year.

Oliver Heald: Will the Minister give way?

Jim Murphy: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not. I gave way for more than 20 minutes earlier, and I think that the House has almost heard enough from me this afternoon.
	We have an ambitious agenda, because we cannot be complacent. We must continue to seek ways to boost UK competitiveness and free business and public services from unnecessary bureaucracy, and the simplification plans, the administrative burden reduction project and the Bill will go a long way towards doing so.
	There are important protections in the Bill. I mentioned the six preconditions—more than in the 2001 Act—which are entirely right, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase pointed out, there should be additional, more meaningful protection if we want to take more powers. The scrutiny process will be more exacting and there will be statutory consultation. A Minister will recommend the procedure, but it will be for the Committees of the House and another place to recommend alternative procedures or to exercise their right of veto.

John Redwood: If the Bill passes into law, what big successes arising from it will the Government be able to point to in two years' time?

Jim Murphy: We would expect delivery of the administrative burdens project. We have contacted and interviewed more than 200,000 businesses and voluntary organisations to determine how we can reduce their administrative burden. We would expect to have bolstered UK competitiveness and to have implemented simplification plans from all 21 Departments. That is how the Bill should be judged in the long term, if it receives a fair wind in this and the other place and is delivered to the statute book.
	An additional protection when laying a draft order is that the Minister must submit an explanatory memorandum and the Regulatory Reform Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the other place will make a case-by-case analysis of every proposed order.
	I give the House clear undertakings, which I shall repeat in Committee, that the orders will not be used to implement highly controversial reforms. They will not be forced through in the face of opposition from the Committees, and the views of the Committees on what is appropriate for delivery by order will be final. Under the super-affirmative procedure, which, as I have said, Parliament has a right to require, the Committees will be able to recommend amendments to orders and the Minister will be able to lay a revised draft order reflecting those recommendations.

Rob Marris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those undertakings but I am mindful of the fact that at some distant point in the future there may be a change of Government. Will he incorporate in the Bill provisions on the veto and the role of Select Committees?

Jim Murphy: We anticipate discussion of that issue in the Standing Committee, on which my hon. Friend may be inclined to serve.
	Business, the public and the voluntary sector rightly say loudly that we shall be judged by our actions in this place. Tonight, we shall be judged on our support for the Second Reading of a Bill that meets the more ambitious better regulation agenda, extends more power to Parliament to scrutinise and veto Government proposals and will enhance UK competitiveness and further support British business.
	I commend the Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time.

LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY REFORM BILL (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A(6) (Programme motions),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill:
	Committal
	1.   The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
	Proceedings in Standing Committee
	2.   Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 9th March 2006.
	3.   The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
	Consideration and Third Reading
	4.   Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
	5.   Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
	6.   Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
	Other proceedings
	7.   Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration
	of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—[Mr. Cawsey.]
	The House divided: Ayes 233, Noes 100.

Question accordingly agreed to.

LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY REFORM BILL [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
	(a)   any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown or government department in consequence of orders under Part 1 of the Act; and
	(b)   any increase attributable to such orders in the sums which under any other Act are payable out of money so provided.—[Mr. Cawsey.]
	Question agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House, I propose to put together motions 4, 5 and 6.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Northern Ireland

That the draft Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 (Amnesty Period) Order 2006, which was laid before this House on 17th January, be approved.
	That the draft Budget (Northern Ireland) Order 2006, which was laid before this House on 26th January, be approved.

Education

That the draft School Finance (England) Regulations 2006, which were laid before this House on 19th January, be approved.—[Mr. Cawsey.]
	Question agreed to.

REGULATORY REFORM

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 18(1)(A) (Consideration of draft regulatory reform orders),

Forestry

That the draft Regulatory Reform (Forestry) Order 2006, which was laid before this House on 23rd January, be approved.—[Mr. Cawsey.]
	Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Ordered,
	That the Civil Proceedings Fees (Amendment) Order 2005 (S.I., 2005, No. 3445), dated 20th December 2005, be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Cawsey.]

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Cawsey.]

Michael Fallon: I am pleased to have the opportunity to introduce a short debate on public libraries. I should say at the outset that by "public libraries" I mean local libraries. It was three years ago, on the eve of war, that we last debated the importance of our national libraries, and we may need to revisit the funding of those libraries and, indeed, of school libraries. It is local libraries, however, for which I should like to claim attention today, because of the growing concern about their future.
	In a similar debate seven years ago, the House was told that the situation was critical. I think that it has grown worse. In the past 10 years, the library service has been in decline. The stock of books in our libraries has reduced by more than 20 per cent. and the number of books issued has declined by 36 per cent. Book spending in libraries has been cut from £138 million 10 years ago to £93 million this year—a cut of about one third in real terms. We have learned that councils across whole swathes of the country are planning library closures. Twelve libraries are to close in Devon, nine in Lancashire and others in Buckinghamshire, Cumbria and Chester. It is alleged that at least 70 libraries may disappear altogether. Who knows? There may be plans to close others in the London area that will not be publicised until after the local elections.
	It is not an entirely gloomy picture. A few more libraries are open longer. I understand that 78 libraries are open for more than 60 hours a week, but that is still fewer than 2 per cent. of the total. There is excellent practice in areas such as Hampshire and Westminster, where libraries are on the up, with more visits and more books being issued. In my own area of Kent, Swanley library has been rebuilt, and Sevenoaks library is being completely modernised. I certainly welcome the additional funding that has recently been provided, including £6 million over a three-year period and the successful implementation of the people's network, on which I congratulate the Government. I look forward to the commitment from the Big Lottery Fund to help community libraries. That is all good news, and I am certainly prepared to give credit where credit is due, but it is not enough. It is clear that the public library service has reached something of a tipping point. Councils are under severe budgetary pressure this year, as never before. Some councils are downgrading the priority that they give to library services at the expense of other services.

Peter Bone: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing the debate and taking an intervention. In my constituency, it is proposed to close Finedon library because of lack of funding. I associate myself with the campaign to keep it open and hope the council will think again.

Michael Fallon: I hope the authorities in Northamptonshire will listen carefully to what my hon. Friend said. I do not want any library closed, as I shall go on to say. Unless the Government act more decisively, we could see many more public libraries start to wither away much more rapidly than they have done.
	What have the Government been doing? They began with their five-year plan. We are familiar with that in various Departments. That is not a criticism; there should be a plan. They issued a document, "Framework for the Future", then they got going on the library service itself, with a series of Whitehall-driven initiatives. In 1998, we had annual library plans. In 2001, public library standards were issued. Then we had public library position statements and in 2004 public library service standards. Those have been superseded, I understand, by what is described as a new suite of best value performance indicators within the comprehensive performance assessment culture block. Next year, I understand, there will be public library impact measures.
	A blizzard of paper, but while all that has been issued, the service has in general terms continued to decline. The Audit Commission reported that half of all library services were inadequate. In an excellent report last year, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee stated that it was
	"dismayed by the chopping and changing that has taken place"
	in Government policy. Most seriously of all, its report has been badly neglected. I have rarely seen—this is not a criticism of the present Minister; it was probably his predecessor—a more pathetic response than the Government's response to that Select Committee report in Cm 6648.
	When asked to consider common processing, the Government responded:
	"We would want to see common standards adopted".
	On the recommendation on collective purchasing, they stated that they
	"would wish to provoke a discussion about which model is most likely to succeed"—
	not, I think, the smack of firm government. On the decline in borrowing, we have the platitude
	"the fall in issues may be due to the service not keeping up with social trends".
	That will not do. Public libraries are not a purely local service. Councils have a duty to provide it, but the Minister has a duty to ensure that it is provided. Under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964—
	"An Act to place the public library service provided by local authorities . . . under the superintendence of the Secretary of State"—
	it was clearly laid down in clause 1 that
	"it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to superintend, and promote the improvement of, the public library service provided by local authorities in England and Wales".
	We are not discussing the maintenance of the drains or refuse collection. The service is provided locally and Parliament insisted that the Secretary of State has a national responsibility to superintend it in the 1964 Act. Under the 1964 Act, the Minister has powers to intervene, and, as we have heard, he also has funding streams at his disposal. The Government must examine the public libraries service and convince hon. Members that they are properly discharging their duty to superintend it. I have read the Minister's speeches and welcome his personal commitment to the library service, so I hope that he will not take it amiss when I say that warm words are not enough and that I want to see the Government act.
	I want the Minister specifically to consider five things. First, will he stop the proposed closures in Northamptonshire, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) mentioned and elsewhere? He has a duty under the 1964 Act to intervene where the service is not being properly provided. I understand that he has partly exercised that duty by writing to the library authorities, and I thank him for doing so. I hope that his letter made it clear that he is ready to exercise his power to intervene under the 1964 Act, if a programme of wholesale closures is introduced in the next few months.
	Secondly, I hope that he will do more to protect book spending and reverse the decline in spending on books. If the Minister can find the money to provide new technologies such as the internet and support services that allow families to access libraries, surely it is not beyond the wit of the Government to do more to protect the core spend on books.

Philip Hollobone: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Does he share my view that the Government should more closely link their bookstart initiative, which attempts to encourage very young children to start reading books, with the provision of local library services?

Michael Fallon: Yes. That is a good example of how we need to keep joining up what the Government are doing and make sure that initiatives are tied together.
	I am concerned about expenditure on books, because the £90 million a year figure that I quoted earlier is less than 9 per cent. of the total library budget. If the stock of books is not refreshed and restored, the attraction of the library inevitably diminishes and a vicious cycle by which fewer people want to visit libraries and borrow books begins. Will the Minister re-examine the matter to see what can be done through encouragement, exhortation, ministerial appeal and existing powers and funding streams better to protect spending on books by the library service?
	Thirdly, I have given hon. Members examples of local authorities that have been commended to me—Hampshire is one and Westminster is another—because libraries are on the up. The Government could do more to promote good practice and find out what works in stemming the decline in the library service. They also need to establish what is stopping other councils from picking up that good practice and implementing it more universally.

David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman include Leicestershire in his list of local authorities that show exceptionally good practice? It has particularly strong links with larger schools in Leicestershire that have their own libraries. The authority and those schools feed off one another, and links have been built between schools and local libraries. There is great potential to stop the drift downwards, which the hon. Gentleman is describing so vividly.

Michael Fallon: Indeed. I commend Leicestershire for that. We should examine the lack of linkage between libraries, particularly in the big conurbations. Why, for example, are library cards not more usable across all the London boroughs? There are examples of good, indeed excellent, practice, and some library authorities have improved their services, but that should not blind us to the fact that overall the service is still in decline, despite the best efforts of librarians.
	Fourthly, will the Minister champion the users of a library just as much as he has championed those who work so hard to provide the service? It is important to help to fight the fight for modernisation, to get libraries into attractive buildings, and above all to get them open at accessible hours. Only 2 per cent. of our larger libraries are open for more than 60 hours a week. They should open for much longer and, above all, should open in the evenings and at weekends, because the modern lifestyle demands such access.
	I hope that the Minister will help the library service to get away from some of the more restrictive thinking of the past and inspire much more customer focus. Why can modern service organisations such as Tesco deal with the problem of finding a work force that can operate at antisocial times, during weekends and in the evenings, while we have so signally failed to persuade councils to do that in running library services?
	Finally, there is the issue of marketing. We need to think about library membership. What more could be done with the card that one signs on for when one moves to a particular area? What could be linked to it? Could it apply more generally or be a passport to similar services offered by the council or the private sector?

Tim Loughton: Does my hon. Friend agree that the real strength of a library is not how shiny a building it is housed in but the service—primarily books and information—that it offers? The most alarming point that he made is that only 9 per cent. of library expenditure goes on books. That is true of libraries near me. The Jubilee library in Brighton recently opened at a cost of £14 million, but expenditure on books to put in it has not risen. Is not that a crazy balance? Even if we have to look at other ways of providing library services in other buildings, such as children's centres or family centres, that are having a lot spent on them, we need to put more into the resource that they offer than the fabric of the buildings.

Michael Fallon: I certainly endorse that. There is a temptation, of course, for those who want to renew their library services to add additional facilities. The new technologies are important. Other information services linking up with Government information streams can successfully be provided in libraries. Nevertheless, the Select Committee came to the conclusion that my hon. Friend articulated so well—that books must be at the core of the library service. New technologies come and go—that is why they are new—but in the end books and access to books must lie at the heart of the service.
	I have given the Minister four or five things that I would like him to consider and act upon. I hope that he will now apply the Government more actively to what can be done to improve the service. If we let local libraries continue to decline, we will be failing not only those of us in this House who love libraries, and people who choose to borrow from libraries all their lives, but people who need libraries: those who do not have the luxury of books at home, or quiet places to study them; those who need access to books after school or during the school holidays; those who are studying after work towards better qualifications; and those who are driven to explore the world of information and reference that is available to them. If libraries are service stations of the mind, it should not be left to council bureaucrats to restrict access to them.
	Libraries are as much part of our education system and common culture as they are cherished parts of our local community. If they wither away, we lose part of our cultural capital and the local points of reference between the knowledge and literature of the past and our present generation, whom those stocks should enrich. Public libraries are not the council's to cut nor the Government's to neglect. They belong to us all.
	It being Six o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Cawsey.]

David Lammy: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) for raising a subject that has not been discussed on the Floor of the House for several years. It is an important issue for communities throughout the country. This is the second occasion on which I have followed the hon. Gentleman. The first was my maiden speech. He was gracious then and I am grateful for the gracious manner in which he presents his arguments.
	When William Ewart introduced the Public Libraries Bill 157 years ago, there was some dispute in the House about the nature and merit of public libraries. It was argued that the ratepaying middle classes would subsidise a service that would be used by the working classes to better themselves. In the face of Tory opposition, and after a hard fight, the Public Libraries Act became law in 1850, but it applied only to boroughs with more than 10,000 people.
	Even then, two thirds of local ratepayers had to agree to fund libraries with a limit of a halfpenny on the rate to pay for them. The money raised could not be used to purchase books. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not subscribe to the views of his political forebears and, like me, he is glad that common sense prevailed so that, by 1855, the libraries rate was raised to a penny and the boroughs were allowed to buy books.
	Even so, we owe a massive debt to Victorian library philanthropists such as Henry Tate, John Passmore Edwards and, of course, Andrew Carnegie, whose generosity enabled the building of nearly 400 libraries throughout the country. The words "Carnegie library" still resonate today. The hon. Gentleman will surely join me in celebrating the work of those visionaries in establishing public libraries as the university of the street corner.
	In an age of empire building, the undeserving poor and hard knocks, those people perceived libraries as a way to further education for the many, build closer and fairer communities and encourage a fairer society with opportunities for all. However, they were also hard- headed men of commerce, not given to seeing the world through rose-tinted glasses. They saw the business case for public libraries, too. In 2006—157 years later—there is still a strong business case for libraries. When a quarter of our 11-year-olds have literacy or maths skills below an acceptable standard, we need libraries. When nearly 12 million adults have a reading age of 13 or younger, we need libraries. When 5 per cent. of our people are unemployed, we need libraries.
	Public debates of the day—on interfaith dialogue, the respect agenda and civic renewal—require our libraries to continue to provide the sort of open, neutral spaces where people from all socio-economic backgrounds can come together, mix and learn from each other. If, like me, people think that those things are important, they will support our libraries' work to make things better.
	Delivering the £9 million Government-funded Bookstart scheme that provides a gift of books to babies and young children three times before they reach school age is inextricably linked to the work of our libraries. We should all be proud of that initiative. We should also be proud of the homework clubs that 60 per cent. of library authorities run to help to ensure that out-of-hours school work gets done. The summer reading challenge that sustains the reading ability of 600,000 children while they are away from school during the long summer break is also a success story. Libraries also host formal and informal sessions for adult learners, giving second chances to people who feel that their school failed them and who would not want to return to a formal educational environment. Work is also being undertaken with high quality bodies such as the BBC and major publishers to get across the value of public libraries. In addition to all those things, there is a range of events to draw in all sections of local communities, including those who are sometimes hard to reach.
	Providing mediated or self-help information facilities, either from the printed page or from digital sources, to turn the information poor into the information rich is also vital in the 21st century. Such activities go on in libraries all over our country almost every day of every week. That is why the Government think that libraries are important. We live in an information economy in which knowledge is key to not lagging behind.

Tim Loughton: I am glad to see that the Minister has moved on from blaming the Conservatives for trying to impede something that happened 157 years ago, to talking about what is happening under his Government—the dire literacy problems that our children have had for the past eight and a half years and more. Under his duties under the 1964 Act, what has he done to promote the local library service that we are debating today?

David Lammy: The hon. Gentleman should go on to the DCMS website and read several of the speeches that I have read. He should contact his local authority leader and ask whether they have received a letter from me—the answer will be yes. He should also speak to the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council. He would then come to the conclusion that there is no Minister responsible for libraries on record as having done more than I have done in the seven months that I have been in the job. So, if I may, I shall proceed.
	Here in Westminster we live in extremely privileged circumstances. Our slightest information need is met by our excellent Library, which contains the best resources that the House can afford. Those resources might not be capable of replication across our 4,500-plus libraries nationwide, but why should not our citizens expect—as near as can be managed—the kind of service that we take for granted?

David Taylor: Will my hon. Friend give way?

David Lammy: I shall not give way; I want to proceed and conclude my speech.
	A central part of the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks was the issue of books versus some of the modern uses of libraries. "The Concise Oxford Dictionary" describes a library as a
	"collection of books for use by the public, or a similar collection of films, records, computer routines, etc".
	I accept that that is a dry definition. Libraries are really about people, both as individuals and as members of communities, and libraries are there to serve a multiplicity of people's needs. I get tired of self-appointed, unelected, unrepresentative groups who dogmatically say that libraries are for this and not for that, or, more specifically, that they are solely for reading. I love reading, although I come from a household in which I could count the number of books on the fingers of one hand.
	The central mission of libraries involves not only books but information—and information, in a computer age, must involve online services, especially in an environment in which some publishers now publish solely on CD-ROM. We have Bookstart, the summer reading challenge and adult reading groups. That is all wonderful, but libraries have never been just about books. The digital resources at our disposal today have broadened immeasurably the kind of public services that libraries can provide.
	Let us look at the House in this context. The last time we wanted to check a reference in Hansard, none of us waded through a 6 in pile of paper copies. We searched the database and relied on information technology to obtain the information that we needed in a particular debate. In the same way, libraries are moving on and people across the country want those services.
	In the past nine months, I have seen some fantastic new library buildings in places as far apart as Peckham, Brighton, Weston-super-Mare and rural Leicestershire. I was delighted to hear about the refurbishment of New Ash Green library in the constituency of the hon. Member for Sevenoaks. Similarly, the Sevenoaks kaleidoscope project will bring the town's museums, library and archive resources together. It is one of the most exciting examples of that in the country.
	As the hon. Gentleman said, and as members of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport pointed out in their report last year, not all our libraries are new and gleaming and many need some serious tender loving care, so I find it hard to understand why the Big Lottery Fund announcement of an £80 million community library programme strand is being criticised because none of the money—this was the implication of what he said—is being spent on books. The money is being spent on fabric, shelving and on making our libraries attractive so that people want to go into them, thereby freeing local authorities to invest in the book stock. We are constantly being told how bad our libraries book stocks are, yet the hon. Gentleman's own authority of Kent has increased its book fund by 60 per cent. in recent years, and in 2004–05 the libraries authorities in England combined increased lending stock by nearly 1 million compared with 2001–02.
	I do not want libraries to be populist, but I do want them to be popular. There were nearly 340 million visits to our libraries last year, over 21 million more than three years ago. Nearly 50 per cent. of all adults make at least one visit to a public library each year. Most of those people visit more often and the proportion of people who visit from our ethnic minority communities has also increased.
	It is important to make the point that there has been a 20 per cent. increase across the country in book ownership since 1997. Because of the net book agreement, book prices have come down. We can all nip out to local supermarkets and purchase books, which was not possible five or 10 years ago. It must be a good thing that people have books in their own homes. More working-class and underprivileged families, whom we care about across, I hope, the House, have books. For those reasons, it is significant that library visits are up. However, the use of that material will differ across the board. I have taken seriously the issue of library closures. I have written to every local authority and I have taken an interest in particular local authorities. The necessity to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service is key against a backdrop in which the Government have been committed to ensuring that local authorities can deliver an effective local service. The local government settlement for the next two years provides an overall increase in Government grant of 4.5 per cent. in 2006–07 and 5 per cent. in 2007–08. For 10 successive years, we have been able to provide councils overall with above-inflation increases in grant.
	Libraries must remain a local service for local authorities and local people to determine. The Government take seriously the responsibilities to provide a comprehensive and efficient system. We take seriously issues relating to adult literacy and young people's literacy. Many children in our most deprived communities need the library as a place in which to work. Libraries play an important role for the elderly in particular, as the local or village librarian can be one of the few faces they see during the week.
	I welcome the debate that the hon. Gentleman secured. This is an important issue, and I agree that it is as important as education. That is why I have taken the steps that I have. It is also why initiatives are going on across the library world. I hope that leaders of our local authorities will think carefully as they make their budget plans in the months ahead. I encourage him, however, to join me in singing the praises of many libraries across the country. There are forces that seem solely to want to talk down the position of libraries in Britain. That is not helpful. Much that is good is also going on.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes past Six o'clock.